The unexamined life is not worth living for a man — Socrates.
For those interested in the fading of Western Civilization and the role higher education has played in this situation, here is a helpful study published by the National Association of Scholars. Although a few years old, it is still relevant.
Part eight can be found here.
Education is always necessary for any democracy regardless of time and place if it is to succeed. Megabyzus was correctly concerned about a government that was run by the uneducated. If citizens lack the abilities to read, write, discern ideas, and critically think about important questions, they will not be able to differentiate good policy from bad, excellent laws from those that are immoral. If citizens are uneducated it will be impossible for them to contribute intelligently to the important discussions of the day. In addition, if citizens lack a good education they will not be able to adequately judge a debate. Public debate, however, is essential to democracy. Often, an uneducated populace will uncritically believe the first thing they hear rather than reflecting on the facts critically and weighing evidence carefully – the very reason Thucydides wrote his grand history of the Peloponnesian War. “So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand,” he tells us.1
The Greek way of education was called Paideia and means something close to “general education.” It was not a specialized form of education but it did give the student the skills to read philosophy, literature, history, to speak persuasively, and to write meaningfully. Paideia did not prepare the student for a specific vocation – the student would find an apprenticeship for that. What the Greek student did learn was how to write, speak critically, and read carefully. The study of history gave the student a sense of the importance of the past as it influenced who they are and becoming to be. The study of literature captured the beauty of language and imagination. And learning philosophy and mathematics allowed the ancient student to think rationally, logically, and critically. This gave the student the general ability to think and communicate in a rational, articulate, and careful manner. They did not have what is today known as “cultural studies” but writers like Aristotle, Herodotus, and Thucydides wrote a lot about other cultures and the Athenians would assimilate the useful ideas they discovered from other civilizations. (Herodotus could arguably be called the first cultural historian.)
Plays were also a form of Greek education. From such playwrights as Euripides, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and the works of homer, Athenians would learn of their history, a sense of tradition (but not always accept tradition for tradition’s sake), and reflect on ideas. Playwrights would often question the ideas of the government and investigate values and civic priorities – as in the case of Sophocles’ Antigone – where the playwright examines the great questions of moral and civil law. The Greek theatre was a place to explore ideas and provide an education for the citizens.
The purpose of Greek education was to create excellent citizens. There was a symbiotic relationship between the state and educated citizens. Part of the role of the state, the Athenians believed, was to produce morally excellent citizens. Then, the educated citizens would be able to make wise decisions regarding the state and foreign policy. Paideia is the kind of education that makes for better citizens. The Athenians believed that “better” meant having more arête or excellence, virtue, or strength.2 It includes the idea of having the inner strength to do the right thing. Athenians believed that good education would make young people better able to use good judgment, to live reverently, and to make decisions with justice.3 Throughout the ages, the Western intellectual tradition has emphasized that education serves the purpose of making morally excellent citizens. As Robert Hutchins explains,
The aim of liberal education is human excellence, both private and public (for man is a political animal). Its object is the excellence of man as man and man as citizen. It regards man as an end, not as a means; and it regards the ends of life, and not the means to it. For this reason, it is the education of free men. Other types of education or training treat men as means to some other end or are at best concerned with the means of life, with earning a living, and not with its ends.4
There is a teleology and significance to learning that goes beyond earning a living. This is an essential and important difference between classical Greek education and the contemporary American conception of education.
Education, in the popular American mind, is for the purpose of getting a job. And American institutions of higher education have blindly accepted this notion. Now, the state and schools will educate its citizens to be good contributors to the state economy, (which in the end amounts to a form of socialism). The state is not primarily concerned with creating excellent citizens as in the classical tradition, but in creating subservient workers who can perform a trade to better the economy. Many who have been educated in this model learn a vocation and can become successful at their trade, but generally do not know how to carefully read, think or write critically about the most important questions of life. Many do not know how to think deeply about critical issues of the day, or how to handle intelligently the obstacles and challenges of life that might occur later in one’s existence. A purely vocational training qualifies one for little more than slave labor – and man is seen as a means to an end but not the end itself. On the other hand, following the Greek idea of paideia, someone with a liberal arts or humanities education is prepared to think broadly and across different fields of inquiry, consider opposing views, weigh evidence, and follow logical reasoning. These skills, based on careful reading and articulate communication are valuable for any number of employers and are really the best education for life itself. Learning should not cease when one finishes college. A liberal arts education will allow anyone to continue the life long process of learning – also skills valuable to employers in the ever changing workplace. More and more, employers are seeking individuals who can change skills quickly and those with a humanities or liberal arts education are able to do this since they are accustomed to move from one field of inquiry to another (such as history, philosophy, or literature). They are trained to read, write, and communicate well. Nonetheless, the pragmatic emphasis of a liberal arts education is a by product of what preparing for life should be. A pursuit of wisdom, learning and eloquence in education is the best preparation for life and work. State education often misses the point that education should prepare one for life and to become a more excellent citizen, not just to become workers in the state economy. The idea that the individual exists for the benefit of the state is a very narrow view of human life. Economics is not the only reality in life. Bill Clinton’s phrase “it’s the economy stupid” is a shallow understanding of human existence. Economics are important but it is only one element among many in determining a valuable, holistic approach to life and learning.5 A recovery of the classical idea of paideia will be a positive move towards a better democracy. Robert Hutchins explains the connection of democracy with liberal education,
This Western devotion to the liberal arts and liberal education must have been largely responsible for the emergence of democracy as an ideal. The democratic ideal is equal opportunity for full human development, and, since the liberal arts are the basic means of such development, devotion to democracy naturally results from devotion to them. On the other hand, if the acquisition of the liberal arts is an intrinsic part of human dignity, then the democratic ideal demands that we should strive to see to it that all have the opportunity to attain to the fullest measure of the liberal arts that is possible to each.6
The liberal arts teach human beings how to be free. The devotion to inquiry, free exchange of ideas, and rationalism allows citizens to think carefully about the most important questions of life – including, what is the best form of government? What sort of thing is justice and how should it be distributed? And does ethical theory hold implications for the community and state? These questions and how they have been answered have powerful implications for society and liberal democracies. A liberal arts education teaches us to strive for personal and public excellence, to think rationally, and to live well in a free society.
In the next post, we will further examine the role of education in classical Greece and explore why Pericles called Athens the “school of Hellas”.
1 Thucydides, 354.
2 Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 193.
3 Ibid.
4 Hutchins, Robert. The Great Conversation: A Reader’s Guide to Great Books of the Western World. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1994), 49.
5 A strictly economic study of political reality often misses the point of human nature. Humans rarely function in strict economic categories; rather they are driven by non-economic and non-rational impulses. Irrational emotions and passions often drive people more than economics as is seen in the American economy where it is commonplace to consume more than one needs.
6 Hutchins, The Great Conversation, 50.
Part four can be found here.
Aristotle is important to the history of democracy in many ways. Here, an examination of some of his most important contributions is in order. Aristotle contributed to the development of democracy by arguing for a greater role of the middle class in consensual government, a robust view of natural law, and a belief that institutions shape the civic virtues and values of the citizenry. Aristotle had a high view of the state, as is clear from the opening lines of his Politics. The state is, in fact, the most encompassing of human institutions and strives for the highest good for the human being, whom Aristotle called not only a “rational animal” but also a “political animal.”1 Aristotle explains his fundamental point of departure in the opening passage of his Politics,
Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other and at the highest good.2
Aristotle rejected Plato’s utopian idealism, intellectual elitism, and communism. He also maintained a healthy and realistic fear of what he called “extreme democracy” (mob rule, again). But he nevertheless believed that some kind of democracy was possible and believed that the middle class was able to play a part in consensual democratic government under the rule of law. After all, he realized that the middle class has a greater stake in the success of the state. Furthermore, Aristotle believed it was possible to create a mutually beneficial government between the aristocratic and middle classes of society. Somehow government must accommodate and make use of the rank and file of the ordinary citizenry with its collective experience, insight, and good sense. Aristotle explains,
The principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is one that is maintained, and, though not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth. For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse. For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together, they become in a manner one man, who has many feet and hands, and senses; that is a figure of their mind and disposition.3
Aristotle believes that shared rule between the many and the few is possible. Even so, he is aware that democracy has its problems. He understands the real danger of the tyranny of the majority and rejects populism. He also understands the degenerative character of human nature. Aristotle, however, thinks that the greater danger lies in keeping the many out of political rule. He seeks a balance between the rule of the few (in his understanding the best citizens) and the many. He tells us,
There is still a danger in allowing them [the many] to share the great offices of state, for their folly will lead them into error, and their dishonesty into crime. But there is a danger also in not letting them share, for a state in which many poor men are excluded from office will necessarily be full of enemies. The only way of escape is to assign to them some deliberative and judicial functions. For this reason Solon and certain other legislators give them the power of electing to offices, and of calling the magistrates into account, but they do not allow them to hold office singly. When they meet together their perceptions are quite good enough, and combined with the better class they are useful to the state (just as impure food when mixed with what is pure sometimes makes the entire mass more wholesome than a small quantity of the pure would be), but each individual left to himself, forms an imperfect judgment.4
Part of Aristotle’s political project was to discover a way the middle class could share power with the aristocracy. In Aristotle, we begin to see the Western value of the many and shared consensual government. He does not believe the many should obtain every single office in the state, but they should have deliberative and judicial functions for the purposes of legal recourse and to hold magistrates accountable. Aristotle understood the state would have a stronger stability when citizens shared power and were responsible for the success of the state. On the other hand, he understood the temptation of human nature to devolve into a crass extreme democracy, clash of wills, and mob rule. Aristotle’s solution to this problem was to formulate a conception of natural law.
Natural law points to the general and universal rules of conduct, both personal and social, derived from nature, which is conceived as rationally ordered.5 Natural law is also known from human nature (human nature being a phenomenon in the world more generally). One of Aristotle’s most important contributions to political thought is his understanding of natural law as the foundation of all social and political institutions. In his Ethics, Aristotle distinguished between conventional law, or law that is established by general agreement, and natural law, which is derived directly from the natural order of the world and from built-in tendencies of human nature.6 Again, here is a connection between metaphysics, epistemology and social-political thought. Aristotle finds in the universe fixed essences in the particulars of this world. He believes that these fixed essences of things define the orderliness and lawfulness of the cosmos, and can be rationally inducted, articulated, and useful to all areas of life including the structures of our political institutions.
Along with other fundamental principles, the foundation of our social and political life is rooted in human nature. This is why in his Politics, Aristotle is profoundly concerned with the civic virtues and character of the individual citizen. The character of our or social and political life is based in the very nature of things and our political institutions simply reflect human nature. For Aristotle, his statement that “man is a political animal” is as much a statement about actual human nature as is “man is a rational animal.” The basic principles of social existence and institutions are not, therefore, “up for grabs”; rather, they up for rational discovery, expression, and application.7
Aristotle also realizes, however, that the state is in some sense “a creation of nature” and is prior to the individual and necessary for the cultivation of civilization and human virtue. (In Aristotle’s view it is the role of the state and civil institutions to create civic virtue among its citizens.) However, there is a sense that the state is prior to the individual simply because the state is a creation of human nature and a social instinct has been implanted into humanity to form governments and states. He explains,
Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the
Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one,
whom Homer denounces – the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts.
… The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue , which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.8
History certainly illustrates the concept of human nature and “that man separated from law and justice is the worst of all.” Aristotle is not the only thinker in Western thought to be persuaded with the idea of natural law. Natural law theory has been embraced by thinkers as diverse as the Greek and Roman Stoics to St. Thomas Aquinas in the middle ages, and John Locke in the early modern era.9 Natural law theory serves to bolster democracy by providing a legal foundation for all human action and behavior. The Greeks had a profound respect for the rule of law and believed that the idea of law itself was a gift from the gods.
1 Miller, 498.
2 Aristotle, Politics, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 9, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 445.
3 Ibid., 479.
4 Ibid.
5 Miller, 585.
6 Ibid., 494.
7 Ibid., 500.
8 Aristotle, Politics, 446.
9 Aristotle, Stoic thought, and others have shared the general view of reality that social and political values are built into the world and human nature from the start. Natural law theory was also rediscovered during the renaissance.
Mark Edmundson. Self and Soul: A Defense of Ideals. Harvard University Press 2015. 283 pp. (Hardcover ISBN: 9780674088207).
Mark Edmundson has taken philosophic approaches in his writings on education, literature, and culture and in Self and Soul: A Defense of Ideals, Edmundson looks rationally and critically at the state of contemporary culture, and evaluates it in the context of ideas that have had a profound impact on the Western intellectual tradition. As Aristotle reminds us, philosophy begins with wonder. When one attempts to understand contemporary culture, one cannot help but wonder at what influenced the ideas, attitudes, and characteristics of our own age. Through this sense of wonder, Edmundson examines three essential values that he believes had an important impact on the development of modern liberal societies – courage, contemplation, and compassion and relates these central ideas to the modern understanding of “Self” and “Soul.” In Self and Soul, Edmundson blends literary criticism with intellectual history and philosophical reflection.
The central concern for Edmundson is that the West has become progressively more practical, materially oriented, and skeptical (1). Absent of real virtues such as courage, contemplation, and compassion, contemporary culture demonstrates a state of affairs where, “unfettered capitalism runs amok; Nature is ravaged; the rich gorge; prisons are full to bursting; the poor cry out in their misery and no one seems to hear. Lust of Self rules the day” (1). Using the categories of “Self” and “Soul” Edmundson presents a thoughtful dialogue between two different metaphysical world views.
The book’s central thesis is both simple and profound – “without ideals, life lacks significant meaning” (102). Edmundson admits that he could be wrong. Those who have embraced genuine ideals, or values, have often been persecuted, killed, or marginalized. Perhaps Freud, Nietzsche, and Derrida are right – values might actually be tools the powerful use to oppress others. And yet, Edmundson wonders, what if Freud and Nietzsche, geniuses though they were, were actually wrong about human nature and the role of ideals in society? What if Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were right about the place of ideals and intellectual virtue in one’s life? Self and Soul provides an intellectual history that seeks to provide a dialogue and exchange of ideas between these positions. Edmundson also has another reason for exploring these questions. Many young people are not even given the option to explore them. For that matter, many adults have given up on these questions altogether. “Every man and woman should have the chance to ponder the question of the ideal” (2). Edmundson argues that everyone today should be able to discover if these values are true or not and determine whether they want to implement them in their lives. The intellectual process of inquiry, free exchange of ideas, and discussion should be available to all. Yet, the concept of enduring, timeless, and essential values seems to be fading from our cultural heritage. The concern is, if we say there are no transcendent values, we cut ourselves off from the educational process of discovery and have no way of deciding whether or not we want to integrate ideals and values into our lives. Deciding whether or not ideals exist and how to implement them in life and society should at least be a living option. Edmundson is not simply concerned about describing a world or society in which values or ideals do not exist, he is well aware that false and counterfeit ideals do exist, and he believes that in various ways Freud and Nietzsche are the great intellectual proponents of anti-idealist ideals.
For Edmundson, the Self is a cultural condition of radical individualism, presentism, and greed. Society is increasingly driven and obsessed with consumer capitalism, mediated through technology and entertainment with no other significant purpose or end. “We live for our personal desires; we want food and sex, money and power and prestige” (14). For many, the mindless pursuit of appetite serves no greater purpose than providing inane distractions for their brief lives. The Soul, on the other hand, as Edmundson conceives it, is a unity of being that fully embodies the ideals of courage, compassion, and contemplation. The Soul is “unified, joy bringing, and fully present to experience” (1). Edmundson’s conception of the soul is similar to Aristotle’s “great souled man,” a soul centered on magnanimity and intellectual and moral virtue. The idealist hopes for joy and presence and unity, not only for himself but for others. Edmundson argues that a generous impulse lies behind the aspiration to the ideal and can be seen in the lives of Socrates, Jesus, the Buddha, and even Hector and Achilles (97). In contrast, however, “Lives without courage, contemplation, compassion, and imagination are lives sapped of significant meaning. In such lives, the Self cannot transcend itself. But the Self seems to hunger for such transcendence” (50).
The central values Edmundson seeks to explicate are courage, contemplation, and compassion. He uses Homer’s Iliad to develop the ideal of courage, although contemplation and compassion can also be found in the epic poem. Plato is examined for the role of contemplation and the quest for eternal Truth and Jesus, the Buddha, and the Hindu sacred texts are used to describe the life of compassion. Homer’s heroes (he focuses on Achilles and Hector) illustrate the unity of purpose between mind and heart as they experience a unity of being that centers them in this world. Edmundson explains, “The warrior senses himself to be an integral part of all he sees around him … The warrior is at home in the world, though there is little that is kindly, generous or sweet about the world in which he dwells” (27). Given a just and honorable cause, the true warrior takes appropriate action. He understands that one’s words and ideas must correspond to one’s actions. The Homeric hero experiences a metaphysical realism that centers him in this world. In contrast, contemporary man is not at home; he is restless and seeks the Self above everything else.
The idea of contemplation is found in Plato. Plato seeks a Truth that will be true for all time. He is not looking for truth that applies exclusively to Greeks, or to men and women who live in city-states, or to those who exist at the same point in time that he does. Plato seeks Truth that will apply to all men and women at all times. As Edmundson explains, “If Plato’s account cannot illuminate the human condition in America in 2020 as well as it did the human condition in Greece when he was teaching and writing, Plato fails” (5). If the true thinker, following Plato, succeeds he will understand the permanence of human nature and the Good that transcends time and space. He “can tell you not only what men and women are like now, and what the world is, but how those things will be for all time” (134). The thinker will understand human nature and understand what kinds of governments will succeed or fail and what kind of education is best. Edmundson then turns to the great ideal of compassion and focuses on the life of Jesus although similar teachings can be found in the Buddha or the wisdom of the Upanishads. “With compassion, every man is my neighbor. Every woman is my neighbor. … No longer is one a thrashing Self, fighting the war of each against all. Now one is part of everything and everyone: one merges with the spirit of all that lives” (8).
Is Edmundson right about our current social and intellectual climate? He is certainly not the first to point out the differences between contemporary culture and the classical worldview. Whether or not one holds to the declension model of Western civilization or one sees both continuities and discontinuities in previous or current societies, it can certainly be said that there is much in today’s culture that magnifies the Self above any and all ideals. Whether it be affective capitalism, ecotourism, or a simple online search (which is based on popularity and may or may not contain that which corresponds to reality), postmodern consumer capitalism exists to provide the ever new experience for the Self. Corporations invest large sums to give customers what they want and build their loyalty free from burdens of thinking too carefully or rationally about the most important concerns of life. The Self does seem to rule supreme. When it comes to education, having information does not mean one has understanding or wisdom. In a larger picture, Self and Soul speaks to the metaphysical tension of being and becoming. Are we now living entirely in a state of becoming? If so, how do we find the eternal moral and intellectual values of being – those that do not change according to time or one’s Self or political identities? Are there really no unchanging ideals? Perhaps it is due to the rationalism of Descartes, the idealism of Kant, or just disengaged global capitalism (simple self-centered greed), the culture of the Self does demonstrate a radical skepticism regarding knowledge of the external world or real values that might shape it for the better. In some ways, Edmundson echoes the philosopher F.H. Bradley as he explains that the Self is a consequence of the failure to seek and integrate the great ideals that were foundational to Western civilization. Many students do not get the opportunity to explore these questions. Edmundson’s Self and Soul argues that our students deserve such a chance.
Recent Comments