Today’s plan:
- Lecture on Cicero
- Questions about
- Curiosity
Barlow’s Cicero and the Education of the Statesman
First, I want to highlight the critique of Cicero, that he isn’t a real philosopher and that his philosophy is just a mash up of different Greek philosophies. See 355 for how Cicero inverts Plato’s priorities. The difference between “nature” and “politics.”
Note that Cicero argues against any education that does not prepare citizens for political deliberation and action, especially attacking philosophical movements that encourage people to divorce themselves from the ugliness and irrationality of public life.
What is the moral of Scipio? (Hint, check out page 360). Of course, Barlow’s purpose is to counter these claims, and to frame Cicero as not just a pragmatist, but rather as a pragmatic philosopher. This should set up our reading of Lanham over the weekend.
Tubero’s dilemma: “How can the heavens be truly objects of knowledge if they, like the human things, are mutable?” The endless conversation, Scipio’s skepticism (361 but is this a fair representation of Plato–probably not…).
What Scipio (representing Cicero) wants is to find a balance between the life of the mind, the interminable conversation, and the demands of kairos, the present, the need to make decisions. Intellectual and abstract conversations might be interminable, but life exists in time and demands decisions. Of course, time will likely prove that every decision will inevitably be “wrong” (hindsight is always 20/20, right?). But this doesn’t excuse us from *not* making decisions, Barlow/Cicero/Scipio would still commit us to making the best argument and the best decision we can, even if we know it isn’t necessarily the right decision. .
The tradition of philosophy on which Tubero relies does not seem to frame the most important questions for philosophy here and now, and therefore may give inadequate guidance to inquiries concerning virtue. Scipio’s correction of Tubero is a necessary preparation for his education, for only when the authority of Plato, or rather of Tubero’s understanding of Plato, is limited can politics reclaim that center stage in philosophy from which, Scipio implies, Plato himself banished it.
A passage worthy of consideration: page 367. This also commits us to review, reassess, revisit, etc. all previous decisions–no decision should be considered permanent: what Barlow describes as the “virtually continuous process of re-founding.” It is in service of this process that critical thinking plays the strongest role, since we need to have not only the methods of insight, but also the bravery and will to question previous decisions, established truths, etc.
So, here’s a final question to consider: does education aim to enrich the soul (develop the individual, “what is the best way for an individual to live? How must *you* change *your* life?) or to enrich the city/state (develop the community, “what is the best way to create and enforce laws? How must *we* change how *we* live?)? Can you see the difference?
Rose and Ogas
Before we start discussing this reading, I have a question.
Ok, so now let’s discuss the reading.
- Why, according to Rose and Ogas, did the standardists beat the individualists in the 1940’s?
- Rose and Ogas offer three key principles of learning, introduced in a 2004 paper by Molenaar, in opposition to standardization. What are these three principles?
- What are some of the problems of implementing individualization (why do they note that it might seem “hopelessly quixotic”)?
- How do they propose to overcome these challenges?
Homework
Two things:
- First, read Lanham. Lanham’s essay is going to be a challenge, but it is worth the time (although it is only 45 pages, be prepared to re-read some sections of it). I am primarily concerned with explicating what Lanham calls “architectonic rhetoric.” Note that the weak/strong defense in the opening speaks directly to my previous question, when does truth happen? Before the rhetorical encounter? Or is “truth” the product of that encounter?
- I encourage you to read this lecture I wrote on Lanham, scroll down to the part where I write about why I love the strong defense. Though dense, it is short and puts the distinction between the strong and weak defense in pretty clear terms
- Finally, I will ask you to read, retweet, and write a summary of one article dealing with higher education that you find on twitter. Don’t just pick the top, scroll and find one that speaks to your interests or curiosity. Make sure your tweet offers some kind of summary or comment and contains the course hash tag, #enc4311
