Great Books - Imanuel Kant

Kant was a very deep thinker as you can see from his bright shiny head. The most important and basically only thing I got out of my study of Kant was that found good in both the rationalist and empericist arguments. He believed both to hold validity. That's about it.

The Great Books Papers, Insights, Thoughts -Descartes

My study of Rene Descartes has not been as intensive as I would have liked (this is an understatement). But I have learned some essential things in my study.

Epistemology

Definition:

Greek episteme, “knowledge”; logos, “theory”), branch of philosophy that addresses the philosophical problems surrounding the theory of knowledge. (msn Encarta)
In my own words, it is the study of knowledge. Wikipedia tags some questions to this study:

1. What is knowledge?
2. How is knowledge acquired?
3. What do people know?
4. How do we know what we know?

Epistemology is important in studying Descartes due to his rationalist philosophy.

Rationalism

Rationalism is a philosophical school that explains how knowledge is acquired. The idea in this school is that knowledge is acquired through intellect or in other words through reason. As opposed to empiricism which explains that knowledge is acquired by sensory experience. Rationalism is a priori not a posteriori.

Descartes’ Rationalism

Descartes was a great proponent of rationalism. He felt that sensory experience was misleading, and therefore, should be dismissed as a form of finding real truth. Descartes, therefore, felt that Intellect and reason were the basis for gaining real truth. Descartes was a mathematician. He liked the science of arithmetic because it was intellectually based as opposed to other sciences such as physics, which were based on experiential data.

At the heart of Descartes’ rationalism is the famous dictum “cogito ergo sum,” which means “I think therefore I am.” He came to this realization after deep concentrated thought. Descartes decided that all empirical data was uncertain and could not be a basis for knowledge. Therefore, He decided to abolish all his previous assumptions. It was in this concentrated state that he realized that the one thing he could not doubt was that he was thinking. He was a thinking thing. From this great insight, the famous dictum, “I think therefore I am” was born. It was from this truth that he based his philosophy not only concerning himself but also that of the world and God. Descartes has often been referred to as the “Father of Modern Western Philosophy”

Descartes’ Life & Books

Descartes was born in La Haye en Touraine, France (center- west region) in 1596. His father was a member of the provincial parliament, and therefore, he had a privileged upbringing. He received a baccalaureat and License in law in 1616 from the University of Poitiers. In 1618 he joined the army of Maurice of Nassau of the Dutch Republic. It was during this time that his interest in philosophy began. In 1622 He returned to France and spent the next 6 years in different parts of the country and Europe. In 1628, he returned to the Dutch Republic where he would remain for the nearly the rest of his life. While in the Netherlands he moved around a great deal. He spent all of his time studying and teaching at universities and writing his books. He died in 1650 in Sweden where he had been invited to be a teacher for Queen Christina.

Descartes’ two most famous books are:

1) “Discourse on Method,” which is basically the story of Descartes’ intellectual development and how he came upon his philosophy.

2) “Meditations on First Philosophy,” which is a standard text for most University Philosophy Departments, explains objections to the “Discourse on Method” and explains deeper Descartes’ philosophy of truth and what is real.

Tocquevilles’s Spin on American Cartesianism

In his book “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville pronounced that Americans are Cartesian in their philosophical method. Of Descartes, Tocqueville says the following, “In the seventeenth century…Descartes in philosophy… abolished received formulas, destroyed the empire of tradition, and overthrew the authority of the schools.” Tocqueville felt Americans to be Cartesian due to their independent-rational thought. Americans do not look to institutions and tradition for a way of life. Rather they look inward to find a reasonable course. “…they are constantly brought back to their own reason as the most obvious and proximate source of truth. Everyone shuts himself up tightly within himself and insists upon judging the world from there” Said Tocqueville. For these reasons, Americans are Cartesian in their philosophy.

The Argument of the Federalist

Introduction

In the fall of 1787 a great national debate broke out in America due to the recent publication of the newly proposed Constitution of the United States of America. Immediately the nation broke into two groups: those who fought for the constitution were called federalists and those who fought against were called anti-federalists. It was during this period that Alexander Hamilton of New York enlisted James Madison of Virginia and John Jay of New York to unite with him to write newspaper columns in various different publications around New York to argue for the federalist cause. Over the course of 10 months, 85 articles were written. Today they are known as the Federalist Papers. Why should the papers be studied? A couple of quotes concerning them come to mind. First, Thomas Jefferson stated that they are, "the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written" (Penguin Classics, Federalist Papers, Editors Introduction, 11). Also, Madison said they are "the most authentic exposition of the text of the federal constitution, as understood by the body which prepared and the authority which accepted it" (Penguin Classics Federalist Papers, Editors Introduction, 12). All American citizens may stand united in the federalist cause. This paper stands as an introduction to the federalist argument. The argument will be broken into two sections: first, the problems with the Articles of Confederation and second, an explanation of the new structure that would be set up: the United States Constitution.

Problems of the Articles of Confederation

Throughout history, man’s search for freedom has been thwarted by the extreme forces of anarchy and tyranny. Finding that middle ground between the two is the great difficulty, and truly history has displayed that anarchy and tyranny, have generally been the norm among societies rather than freedom. In ancient Greece, the idea of freedom was understood and sought after. As a free people, they were citizens of the state rather then subjects of a ruler. As citizens they had the right to elect their own leaders and participate in legislation. Several of the Greek city-states established democracies. But these democracies suffered from a serious lack of order. They were not constitutional. The rule of law often suffered greatly in the wake of the passion of the people. For example, leaders were often booted out for any reason at any time, and the laws of the land could be changed at any moment to suit the current desires of the people. As a result, the Greek democracies did not obtain the measure of freedom perhaps hoped for. Of democracy Aristotle states that it has in view the interest of the needy and not the “common good of all” (Aristotle, Politics).

The federalists felt that the Articles of Confederation, though well intended to set up a free society, resembled too closely the democracies of Ancient Greece. Under this system the federal government had virtually no power. All power laid in the state governments. Among these various governments most were ran by state legislatures, who mimicked the problems of ancient Greece. Elections were often, representation was high, often the legislatures were common folk from the towns or rural areas. Many had no legal background or understanding of the law. As a result, these legislators had little respect for established law or property rights. Often laws were changed to accommodate one class of people. Contracts could become null under new laws that the legislatures would pass. In several instances, the value of property dropped dramatically due to the state governments printing paper money, which would result in hyper inflation. Most states were headed by a unitary legislature. These bodies had no checks placed upon them. They were the executive, judicial, and legislative branch all in one. As a result of a serious lack of order and stability, Hamilton would refer to the Articles of Confederation as a government of “feudal anarchy” (Federalist Papers No. 27). Jefferson felt that these legislatures were just as bad or worse than a single monarch. He said, “173 Despots would surely be as oppressive as one….An elective despotism was not the government we fought for” (Penguin Classics, Federalist Papers, Editors Introduction, 25).

In addition to these problems, the federalists believed that freedom would be hindered due to division of the states. Without a union of the states, each state would be responsible to maintain an army to protect itself from other states or external powers. As a result, the powers of the state government would be consolidated into the hands of the state executive, which would result in less freedom. Hamilton said this concerning the states, “To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free” (Federalist Papers No. 8). Further, as a result of division, there would be less economic prosperity: more funds would have to be placed towards the maintenance of armies of the various states. Also, tariffs between states hampered trade and availability of resources. This division would hurt the stability of the region, which would result in weaker economic markets. Union among the states would allow them to pool their resources and to establish one army to protect them all. Threat of external powers, was something that Hamilton felt strongly about. The anti-federalists did not feel this way considering that the external powers’ central governments were far away across the Atlantic, but in article 3 of the Federalist Papers Hamilton reminded them that Spain & Britain were their neighbors and bordered several of the states through their respective territories or colonies. Also, the proposed constitution would establish regulations of commerce among states, which would put an end to disputes among states over trade and boundaries.

As clearly shown, there were a multitude of problems under the Articles of Confederation. It was believed by most that change or reform of some sort was necessary. The question was how best to do so. It was the United States Constitution that the federalists resolved to be the answer to the problems of the A. of C. This was highly controversial for the anti-federalists saw the constitution of 1787as what they had fought to get away from in 1776. The following is the second part of the argument of the federalists: the United States Constitution.

Explanation of the federalist argument for the constitution

“We the people, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America. “ I begin with the pre-amble because it succinctly puts forth what the federalists believed would be accomplished as a result of the constitution.

During the great national discussion the anti-federalists argued that this document was not from the people whatsoever, but from a powerful group of aristocrats that wanted to increase their own power. Irregardless, the fact is that the document actually did come from the people in two key ways. First, the document was created by a separate group that had no allegiance to state governments or the Articles of Confederation. These men were from different states representing varying classes and occupations from farmers and merchants to lawyers and statesmen. Second, it was the people who ratified the constitution not the state legislatures. Article VII of the constitution explains that “The Ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.” This means that the constitution came into effect only upon those states that ratified it. Each state held conventions where different delegates were elected and they in turn voted for or against the constitution. This document truly is of the people for it was both written and ratified by them.

The Federalists believed that a rigid system that allowed for no change would self destruct. Therefore, in Article V of the constitution they fashioned the process by which the constitution could be changed. This article stated when two-thirds of both houses of congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures proposed an amendment then they could be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or state conventions. Article V is a crucial part of the constitution for it allows America the opportunity to adjust and make unforeseen changes that future generations would have to deal with. It is interesting to note that both Hamilton and Madison believed change to be a necessity as time past on. Both hinted to this point by warning against being too rigidly stuck to the solutions of the past. In Federalist Paper No. 14, Madison stated, “Is it not the glory of the people of America that, whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experiences?” Further, Hamilton in Article No. 34 said, “There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, so it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.” It is safe and interesting to note that the stability and order that the constitution brings to America would have been undone very long ago with out the capacity to change the law according to the customs and experiences of the day.

Another point that the federalists felt strongly about was that the federal government must take on the debts of the revolutionary war. Article VI of the constitution makes it clear that all debts entered into previous to the constitution under the A. of C. would be upheld by the new constitution and government. The national debt was a great problem in 1787. Under the A. of C. the debts were divided mainly among the states. Some states were much wealthier than others and were able to easily pay them. On the other hand, some states were the location where much of the fighting took place and incurred damages while others were untouched. Due to the weakness of the A. of C. to force the states to tend to their debts or to enforce taxes on the states so that it could tend to them, many of the debts of the war were not being paid, and therefore, the national credit was greatly hindered. The federalists believed that the best way to administer the debt was by consolidating it into one place; further, they also felt that it would help force the states into an even stronger union (they would all be in it together). Of the national debt Hamilton said that it would be a “national blessing.” In many ways it has been a blessing. When the southern states succeeded from the Union, Lincoln’s most powerful argument against succession was that they could not leave the Union due to their obligation as part of the national debt. Furthermore, during the crisis of the great world wars we were able to finance the costs due to the nation’s ability to go into debt.

Next, the separation of powers was the most essential part of the federalist argument. It is that the executive, legislature, and judiciary should not fall under one organization, but rather should be separate. The executive branch would be over running the ongoing business of the government. For example, national defense, dealings with other nations, the treasury, regulations over national law, agriculture, commerce, trade, labor, etc. The legislative branch would be in charge of crafting needed legislation to promote the general welfare. Finally, the judiciary would be responsible for interpreting the law and administering justice. The specific responsibilities of these branches are laid out in Articles I, II, and III of the constitution. Though these branches would be independent, they would also be connected with the power to influence or check one another. For example, the legislative branch would have the power of the purse. This means that the executive can only do what the congress gives him the money to do. Further, the executive takes part in legislation. He may veto bills that do not have a two-thirds majority of both houses of congress. The judiciary can check the legislature by stating certain legislation to be unconstitutional. And finally, the legislature can override the judiciary through amendments to the constitution. Even more so, the judiciary is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Therefore, rather then each of these branches being completely separate and independent, it may be more accurate to refer to them as mixed or inter-dependent (independent partners). In Federalist Paper No. 47, Madison said, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The idea is pragmatic in nature. It is rooted in the philosophy that men are selfish by nature and that to pool all power, by however the means, into one body would only lead to tyranny. This philosophy is contrary to that of the 18th century French Philosopher Rousseau, who held a more utopian philosophy where there is a social contract between the government and the people, and by nature the government is good and therefore will promote the general welfare. On the contrary, the federalists felt little sentiment for social utopias, but believed that the general welfare would be best promoted by dividing up the powers of government and allowing them to check one another.

Many great philosophers have held the idea that to form a mixed government with interdependent branches would be the surest way to promote the general welfare of a state. The federalists read heavily in the writings of the 17th and 18th century philosophers Montesquieu and Locke. They called for a separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in a day when monarchies were the norm. The federalists were also well aware of the thoughts of the ancient political philosophers Aristotle and Polybius, who believed a mixed form of government to be superior to any pure democracy, aristocracy, or monarchy. By bringing all three forms into one civic, they felt that it would moderate extremists. Rather than denying a certain group power, which would only irritate and inflame portions of society, all would have a voice and share in the work of running the government. A mixed government would undermine revolution by allowing there to be revolutions, so to speak, through the elections that would take place every two, four, and six years. On the other hand, by dividing the powers and their terms of service, there could still be some sense of stability. The whole notion of a mixed government or a separation of powers was strongly supported by the federalists due to the abuses of the unitary legislatures of the several states under the Articles of Confederation.

Finally as a practical matter, the states were instilled with great power and autonomy under the constitution. At the time of the ratification of the constitution, the constitution had very little reach when it came to within the borders of the states. The idea was that local governments would govern their states or localities better than the central government. The federalists believed that state law must be upheld by the federal government. The powers of the states are well defined in Article IV of the constitution. Within this article the following is said, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Though an arguable degree of autonomy has been taken away from the states since the civil war, by and large the geographical areas of each state remain independent and responsible for themselves.

Closing

By studying the 85 articles known as the Federalist Papers and the constitution we can learn what the federalists fought for. Their argument as stated earlier was divided into two sections. First, they fought against the current structure (the Articles of Confederation), and second, they fought for a new structure (the United States Constitution). As American citizens we should be familiar with the federalist argument for all Americans who uphold and support the constitution are federalists. Though there are great differences in political opinion among American citizens, one opinion that we can stand together on is the argument of the federalist. The constitution unites us. Recently President Barack Obama took the oath of office, which all other presidents have taken. It is when the president swears, “and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America” that he is uniting himself with Hamilton, Jay, Madison, and all others of 1787, who supported the argument of the federalist.

Bring Education Home

Bring Education Home

by: Mary Ellen Fox

The structure of a typical student’s life in America today insists that they separate their core beliefs from their education. In school, children learn about historical events, mathematical equations, and poetical rhyme schemes. At home, they (hopefully) learn core truths about the purpose and reality of life, what it means to be a good person, and how to know truth. Discussion and integration of what is learned at school with all other aspects of life, such as church, community, or family is rare. Americans naturally transfer this compartmentalization to their entire life. Ask a typical American today how much he uses his education on a day to day basis and he will likely tell you to what degree he does or does not use it in his work. What he will likely not tell you is to what degree his education enriches his personal, spiritual, or familial life. As a result, Education has lost its influence over these important aspects of life.
What seems to be missing is an education for the entire person, which subsequently envelops their entire life. In this paper I will argue that when education becomes separated from one’s core beliefs, it no longer has the ability to be relevant to the most important aspects of one’s life. I will offer examples from the classics that recall how education can add wonder to our daily lives, enhance our friendships, support us in our courtships and most importantly strengthen and enrich our families. I will end by suggesting that the best way to reunite education with our core beliefs is to bring education home.

Interestingly, Americans have always had this tendency to compartmentalize. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in 1831 he immediately observed that American’s were “Cartesian” opposed to “Pascalian.” By this he meant that Americans were less likely to view daily actions directly motivated by deep convictions. Instead, their actions were motivated by the pragmatic, and that which would benefit them in this life. They had little interest in philosophy. Of Americans, Tocqueville wrote: “Men who live in ages of equality have a great deal of curiosity and little leisure; their life is so practical, so confused, so excited, so active, that but little remains to them for thought” (Tocqueville, 16) So, our focus on the pragmatic is not new, in fact it is very “American.”

However Tocqueville, still observed many instances in which education and core beliefs, together enriched the lives of Americans. This is where I believe Americans have changed. Because we have separated the teaching of virtue with the rest of education, we can no longer rely on education to bolster virtue, or vice versa. Thus, our education has become irrelevant in areas where it used to strengthen us. For example, Tocqueville wrote that it was the education of American women that made them more virtuous and wiser when choosing a spouse and more content in their roles as wives and mothers. He writes: “Although the Americans are a very religious people, they do not rely on religion alone to defend the virtue of woman: they seek to arm her reason also”(Tocqueville, 200). Similarly, Tocqueville notes that the study of core books in the home- namely the Bible and Shakespeare became “the charm of their leisure hours” and bolstered them from the tempting vice of materialism. Study was something that enriched all aspects of their lives.

In his book Crunchy Cons, Rod Dreher quotes E.F. Schumacher as saying: “Education cannot help us as long as it accords no place for metaphysics.” Dreher continues: “When Schumacher said that education is useless unless it teaches metaphysics, he was saying that it cannot be separated from teaching not only morals, but more deeply, the nature and purpose of reality… to provide children with a basic metaphysical framework to help them live meaningful lives with a sense of purpose” (Dreher, 213). Along with this framework, I believe, comes the understanding that metaphysics can only artificially be separated from other truths- logic, beauty, ethics and so forth. Truth is in fact, whole. As C.E. Sargent said: “One subject is dependent upon another so that we cannot thoroughly know a single book in all that great library without knowing all. The classification may be admirable, yet it is after all but the classification of dependent parts of a sublime and incomprehensible whole.” (Sargent, 128) Understanding this makes one’s life more whole. I believe this perspective is lost in an education system that segregates all subjects, and leaves metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and religion out all together. Such an education cannot be relevant beyond job- training and degree acquiring.

Many people disagree, however, that the greatest purpose of education is to discover a set of core truths. For example, Michael Bassis, president of Westminster College wrote in the Deseret News in 2004 that the point of education was that students must “learn how to learn.” “Knowing is important” Basis writes “but it cannot be an end in and of itself. What we know today will be outmoded tomorrow.” He goes on to say that: “While, of course, we want students to learn specific content, we want them to learn how to think critically and creatively, express themselves coherently, work collaboratively and develop a global consciousness” (Bassis). Bassis’ argument has merit, but can not be the final say. With technology and the internet rapidly changing the face of almost all industries- schools can not logistically keep up, and thus must prepare students to be flexible and quick themselves. However, while the skills listed by Bassis are very important to a great education, they cannot logistically be ends in themselves. What seems to be missing in Bassis’ argument is the library of knowledge that will never be outmoded. An education used to mean turning to great thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Christ to learn truths that had not become outmoded in thousands of years let alone the few years it takes for current freshman to graduate. Likewise, George Macaulay Trevelyan said: “Education has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading” (Trevelyan, 582). If one sets out with the purpose to give himself the greatest education possible- he will ironically never reach his destination. For the greatest minds throughout history always sought truth.

What lies at the heart of the “learn how to learn” argument I believe, is a fundamental view that the most important purpose of education is preparation for a career. Numerous polls have recently shown that the highest percentages of Americans believe the primary focus of schools should be “preparing students for the workforce.” I echo Alan Bloom’s lament: “Fathers and mothers have lost the idea that the highest aspiration they might have for their children is for them to be wise- as priests, prophets or philosophers are wise. Specialized competence and success are all they can imagine.” (Bloom, 58) Likewise, consider the words of John Dewey: “Education” he said “is, not a preparation for life; education is life itself”. If this is true, then what is the reality reflected in the attitude that education’s highest aspiration should be job- training? Do Americans believe that their career is the most important aspect of their lives? Perhaps, but I do not believe this is the whole story. Instead, I think that Americans have lost the vision of how education can enrich all aspects of life. How can we regain this vision? As is often the case, we can look to the classics.

*******************************************************************
Through the classics we regain the perspective of education as a never ending journey that enriches all aspects of life. In the classics we remember how education can enliven daily life, and friendships, why it is essential in choosing a spouse, and most importantly how it strengthens and enriches the family. When education is not disconnected from one’s core beliefs, there is no disconnection with the core of one’s life.

Edith Hamilton once said: “It has always seemed strange to me that in our endless discussions about education so little stress is laid on the pleasure of becoming an educated person, the enormous interest it adds to life. To be able to be caught up into the world of thought -- that is to be educated.” I wholeheartedly agree. Education adds wonder and beauty to our daily life. My favorite memory of college was the English Academic Society’s annual Christmas Yule Fest where Professor Scott Samuelson would read Truman Capote’s quirky but heartwarming story entitled “A Christmas Memory.” As Professor Samuelson’s deep voice read the story, the entire room became quietly immersed in a common experience of amusement and delight. Experiences like this are not limited to wonderful literature. A friend of mine who was a Biology major told me that learning about bugs was changing the way she saw the world. The intricacy and perfection of the small creatures enthralled her like nothing else could. Education makes seemingly common experiences magical. I believe many Americans have lost this perceptive.

Similarly, when education becomes a journey to find truth, it enhances friendship. For, in fact, to learn with another is one of the greatest joys of life. No friendships have grown deeper in my life than the ones wherewith I pondered the greatest truths of life. Such a journey begs for companions. This is well stated by Anne Elliot in Jane Austen’s Persuasion: “My idea of good company, Mr. Elliot, is the company of clever, well informed people, who have a great deal of conversation; that is what I call good company.’ ‘You are mistaken,’ said he gently ‘that is the best company” (Austen, 118). In C.S. Lewis’s book Surprised by Joy he describes the ecstasy of finding a first friend who shares his interest in books. He writes:

“I found Arthur sitting up in bed. On the table beside him lay a copy of Myths of the Norsemen. ‘Do you like that?’ said I. ‘‘Do you like that?’ said he. Next moment the book was in our hands, our heads were bent together, we were pointing, quoting, talking- soon almost shouting discovering in a torrent of questions that we liked not only the same thing, but the same parts in the same way; that both knew the stab of Joy and that, for both, the arrow was shot from the north” (Lewis, 131).

While his first friend was a joy, later friendships shaped his entire education. Lewis called his second friend his “alter ego” because he has read all of the same books as him, but completely disagrees with him on every point. Later in his life it is his close friends that help him realize the truth of Christianity. Friends with a common commitment to learning and the discovery of truth, in fact, shaped Lewis’s entire education.

Thus, it is perfectly logical that in many classics men and woman seek such a companion in their spouse. In Little Women Jo is impressed with the Professor’s articulate defense of right and wrong in the face of other intellectuals. In Pride and Prejudice Mr. Darcy agrees with the following description of accomplishment: “A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages to deserve the word…” “All this she must possess,” adds Darcy, “and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading” (Austen, 28). In Sense and Sensibility, Marianne falls for Willoughby on the spot when she realizes they have similar tastes in Cowper, Scott and Pope. (Austen, 45). I do not believe education plays a similar role in our courtship today.

Some may say that this is just aristocratic snobbery, however, I disagree. In Charles Dicken’s classic David Copperfield, David learns too late the advantages of being in the company of “well- informed and intelligent people.” He marries his first wife Dora who is a sweet and beautiful, yet ignorant and childlike woman. After a while, David becomes “resolved to form Dora’s mind.” David says “I talked to her on the subjects which occupied my thoughts; and I read Shakespeare to her- and fatigued her to the last degree. I accustomed myself to giving her, as if it were quite casually, little scrapes of useful information, or sound opinion” (Dickens, 580- 581). David soon realizes his attempts to change Dora are futile and destructive and wisely halts them. However, I do not find his desire to have such a companion groundless. Dora’s ignorance does not bother David because he is a snob- eager to make his wife more “impressive” to others. Rather, he finds that their day- to- day associations lack the depth of intellect that he realizes may have been blissful in marriage. He realizes there is “no disparity in marriage like disunity of mind and purpose” (Dickens, 554). Later in the novel he enjoys such an association with his second wife Agnes, and finds it is truly bliss.

Which leads to the most important perspective that I believe we have lost, and that is the ability of education to strengthen and enrich the family. Alan Bloom noticed the lack of education in the American home and wrote:

“People sup together, play together, travel together, but they do not think together. Hardly any homes have any intellectual life whatsoever, let alone one that informs the vital interests of life. Educational TV marks the high tide for family intellectual life” (Bloom, 58). In disconnecting education from its core- we have also separated it from the home. We no longer turn to it to bring joy, unity and purpose into our family.

Yet through numerous classics we can gather a perspective of how education, family, and core values support each other. In Louisa May Alcott’s novel Little Women the March family constantly learns together. The result is a home that overflows with wisdom and joy that every reader longs to enter. The girls read Pilgrim’s Progress and pretend to be pilgrims journeying towards truth. They sing together every night. They create a pretend newspaper called the “Pickwick Papers” where they write poems and silly stories. They support each other in their ambitions: Aimee to be an artist, Jo to be a writer and Beth at the piano. Jo mentors Aimee in her lessons at home when all she is gaining from school is envy and silly vanity. The girl’s education intertwines itself with their character, transforming them into intelligent, virtuous women.

Such descriptions seem far removed from the modern family and modern education. Some may say they are impractical and idealistic- and they may be partially right. However, have we as Americans lost the very aspiration for such an educated home? Do we leave education at school, because we think it has nothing to offer us at home?
Similar scenes are displayed in Gene- Stratton Porter’s novel Laddie. In the Stanton family, education is an indelible component of the family culture. Mr. Pryor asks Mrs. Stanton: “The members of your family whom I have seen are fine, interesting men and women, educated above the average… I wish you would tell me just how you have gone about schooling your children.” Mrs. Stanton replies:

“By educating ourselves before their coming, and with them afterward. Self- control, study, work, joy of life, satisfaction with what we had, never ending strife to go higher, and do better… From the first tiny baby my husband has taught all of them to read, write, and cipher some, before they went to school at all. He is always watching, observing, studying: the earth, the stars, growing things; he never comes to a meal but he has seen something that he has or will study out for all of us. There never has been one day in our home on which we did not read a new interesting article from book or paper; work out a big problem, or discuss some phase of politics, religion or war. Sometimes there has been a little of all of it in one day, always reading, spelling and memory exercises at night…. He has been a schoolmaster, his home his schoolroom, his children, wife and helpers his pupils; the common things of life as he meets them every day, the books from which we learn” (Porter, 289- 290).

In this description there is no separation of life and education, and the results are remarkable. The home and family that an atmosphere of learning creates is one that I believe many Americans long for but don’t know how to produce. Education is missing from our homes, and we don’t know what we’ve lost.

In the examples of families given above we see how education and virtue bolstered each other, and how these together enriched family life. I want to share one last real- life example given by Alan Bloom on this relationship between core principles, education and the home:

My grandparents were ignorant people by our standards, and my grandfather held only lowly jobs. But their home was spiritually rich because all the things done in it… found their origin in the Bible’s commandments, and their explanation in the Bible’s stories and the commentaries on them, and had their imaginative counterparts in the deeds of the myriad of exemplary heroes. My grandparents found reasons for the existence of their family and the fulfillment of their duties in serious writings, and they interpreted their special sufferings with respect to a great and ennobling past. Their simple faith and practices linked them to great scholars and thinkers who dealt with the same material… There was a respect for real learning, because it had a felt connection with their lives. (Bloom, 60)

This is what I fear we are losing: a genuine feeling that learning and study, in all subjects, can add purpose and meaning to our homes and lives.

************************************************************************
So far I have made the case that the separation of education from core values has in turn separated our education from some of the most important aspects of our lives: most notably, the home. I have also given examples to remind us of the way education can enrich some of these most important aspects of life. I conclude with a suggestion to parents who feel this separation is harmful, and that is: bring education home.

The fact of the matter is that most schools today never integrate their curriculum with metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and religion. For the lucky students who are learning these things at home the message is nevertheless clear that they are irrelevant to his education. Doesn’t it naturally follow that the student will similarly regard his education as irrelevant to what happens in the home? Only by bringing education home, back to the nucleus of one’s existence and core beliefs, can we help our children see education as a grand whole that will enrich their entire life.

The Oxford Tutorial

The Oxford Tutorial
By: Mary Ellen Fox

This spring my husband and I had the amazing opportunity of visiting Oxford University. We had wonderful tour of the University and the surrounding city by a well- informed tour guide, an Oxford Professor himself. As we probed him about the inner workings of the world’s oldest and most elite universities, the amazing thing that struck me was his description of how the undergraduate’s education is “tutorial- driven.” Undergraduates have an average of two hour long tutorials where 1- 4 students spend an hour win an academic discussing and shaping their studies. Amazed, my husband blurted out: “That’s sounds so great! Why don’t we do that in America?” “Money” was his one- word answer. He shared with us that he recently had a conversation with a Dean of a large university in the United States who was interested in modeling some of Oxford’s famed “Academic Communities.” Our guide asked him if they would be establishing the tutorial system. “Heavens no,” was the dean’s reply, “that would cost way too much.” Our guide made it clear that, in his opinion, any attempt to model Oxford’s superb educational system without the tutorial, was futile.
In an essay entitled “The Oxford Tutorial” edited by David Palfreyman, (you can read it online here: http://www.oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/) a group of Oxford Professors and graduate students share their praise of the tutorial system at Oxford. I will summarize a few of the great advantages they discussed of the tutorial system.
First, the responsibility for learning is placed on the students shoulders. As one student wrote: “It was made clear that the emphasis of the work would be directed through problem solving to developing the skills required to think as a chemist, with the initiative and emphasis placed squarely on my shoulders. My tutors would be there to advise and probe, not to simply deliver information as I had previously been used to.”
In the tutorial, individual strengths, weaknesses and interests are addressed to create an individualized study plan. University Professors do give lectures on an ongoing basis, that students are encouraged to attend, but the lectures are not likely to be directly related to what the student is studying. It is up to the student to make the connections with learning. Richard Dawkins relates the following story:

“Another term my college tutor, recognizing that my bias in biology was more philosophical than his own, arranged for me to have tutorials with Arthur Cain… Far from his tutorials being driven by any lectures then being offered for the Honor School of Zoology, Cain had me reading nothing but books on history and philosophy. It was up to me to work out the connections between zoology and the books that I was reading. I tried, and I loved the trying. I’m not saying that my juvenile essays in the philosophy of biology were any good – with hindsight I know that they were not – but I do know that I have never forgotten the exhilaration of writing them.”

Another strength the professors discussed was that the tutorial makes it impossible for students to “fake it” when they aren’t studying hard, and students said similarly that the tutorial helped them work harder and stay motivated throughout the semester. Students said the tutorials helped them sort out problems as the arose, which they say is “essential in subjects which build up on earlier material, and reducing the problem of poor motivation which results from getting stuck with a problem at an early stage.”
Lastly, the students get one- on-one exposure to great scholars, and feel the scholar’s enthusiasm for learning. At Oxford and Cambridge, the world’s top scholars mentor students in their individual specialties.
Can a world- class tutorial system be repeated outside of a University like Oxford or Cambridge? On this point, I found the following comment by Richard Dawkins insightful:

Although my 1994 article name-dropped tutors who were world-class masters, I really believe there was no need for them to have been that. I still think the Oxford one-to-one tutorial was the making of my entire career. But if I am honest, I think this might have been so even if my tutors had known very little more than I did myself. The important thing was the knowledge that my essay, when I eventually completed it, would be the object of one hour’s undivided and serious attention from somebody qualified to judge it and discuss its topic with me at least as an equal. The educational value comes not from listening to what the tutor has to say (as if a tutorial were a private lecture), but from preparing to write essays, from writing them, and from arguing about them in an unrushed session afterwards.
It is the feeling that one’s essay will be valued and discussed for a whole hour that makes the writing seem worthwhile. It gives the undergraduate an inkling of how it might feel to be the world authority on a subject. If anything, this valuable educational experience might come better with a Junior Tutor than with a senior scholar who really is the world authority and whose prestige and reputation might seem to quell debate. The important thing to retain from Oxford’s unique tradition is the whole hour of a tutor’s attention, with nobody else present. Not only should Oxford and Cambridge find ways of making the system economically sustainable, but also the model could with advantage be exported to other universities. (The Oxford Tutorial)

I agree that a world class tutoring does not need to be confined to expensive elite universities. There are many people with the education and capabilities to be excellent mentors.