Challenge to Ami's "usual suspects"

[Roxanne Appleby]

The challenge: If you respond to the following, do so without denigrating the author in any way or even referring to his other works. Confine your comments solely to engaging the content of this piece and only this piece. Think you can do it? It's not a trick; there's plenty of meat to chew on here without going outside.

Have It Your Way
By HARVEY C. MANSFIELD
November 16, 2006

The recent Harvard faculty report on general education has made waves for its new requirements to study America and religion. These may be good -- we shall see -- but the report is more remarkable for the trendy thinking it reveals in the higher reaches of American education.

The dominant practice of Harvard now is choice. Students should be able to choose the courses they want to take. The practice applies also to professors, who are permitted to choose the courses they want to teach. I say this is the "practice," not the principle, because a principle would say why choice is most important and what goal is to be sought from it. Our postmodern professors, however, do not care for principles. Principles would be a guide for one's choice of courses, such as the goal of coming to college in order to open one's mind. But this report says that the goal is to put students "in a position from which they can choose for themselves what principles to be guided by."


So choice applies to the principles that are to guide choice. You can choose to have a closed mind if you like. There's no more truth to having an open mind than a closed one. The professors believe that every mind has a perspective or point of view it cannot escape. There's really no such thing as an open mind; all minds are closed. You can "reflect critically" on your beliefs and values, but this is for the purpose of learning how to defend them with "reasoned arguments." It isn't for the purpose of giving you a taste of the life of the mind while you are at college.

This summary of the logic of choice will probably appear unfair to the co-chairs of the committee making the report, Alison Simmons in the philosophy department and Louis Menand in English. After all, they are in fact limiting choice by proposing a program of General Education. When that term was used in Harvard's original General Education program, inspired by President James Conant in 1947, "general" meant an education that drew common principles from the specialized departments of the university. Since science was the main source of specialization, a general education would connect science with the principles of democracy, and thus scientists with their fellow citizens. To do this, General Education was, in effect if not in name, and for courses outside science, a program in the Great Books and in Western Civilization.

The present version of general education is neither of these. It regards great books and Western Civ as arbitrary limitations on student choice. Yet, though its principle, or non-principle, is choice, it lays down severe limits on choice. In the first place, students' choice is limited by what the professors are willing to teach. It is apparent from the courses that students seek out and from the dissatisfaction they express that they are more interested in big questions (Great Books) and in the big picture (Western Civilization) than their professors. The professors, however, teach the Great Books not out of principle, or, dare one say it, affection, but because they feel the need -- despite their principles -- to justify why they don't believe in the Great Books; and because they want to cut them down to size.

Second, I have not yet completed the logic of choice. When choice is without any principle to guide it, those who must make a choice look around for something to replace principle. They fasten on the fact of change: "Change is the essential condition of modern life," says the report. Change is caused by mindless "forces" that human beings cannot control, for example the advance of technology. This is precisely what makes living by principle impossible; no principle can withstand the fact of change, so that fact becomes our principle and our guide. The purpose of general education is to prepare students "to adapt to change."

When you first hear the idea of choice, it sounds bracing. But in the end, because we lack a principle to guide choice, it turns out that we must tamely "adapt to change." A principle would give you a purpose to hold to, providing refuge in misfortune and admonition in success. Adapting to change leaves you at the mercy of impersonal forces that care nothing for you or your choice. In order to "meet their responsibilities" students must be "responsive to the conditions of the 21st century." Your responsibility is not to do what is right, nor even to do what you think is right. It is to be reactive. You are recommended to exercise your choice by surrendering it to whatever is coming next.

And what is the change we must adapt to? To succeed at being trendy you have to identify the trend accurately. The main one given is globalization -- obvious enough, one might say. But what is globalization? Is it the extension of Western civilization in politics, economics and culture, in which the West can take pride? Or is it the encounter with other cultures that will shame us for our willful ways? To answer, one must form a reasoned judgment about the pros and cons of the West, and, not incidentally, consider why change is essential to modern life (as the report says) rather than life in any era. Isn't modernity the invention of the West? If so, isn't adapting to change an imperative peculiar to the West?

The invocation to change in the Harvard report is vague and unavailing, but altogether characteristic of university opinion. Another empty word in the report is "life," as when it says that general education "links liberal learning with life beyond college." How insipid! What could make that life worthy of respect? What could inspire it? Where is the experience of greatness? It would be good for students to learn about America and religion, as the report proposes -- if only they had teachers partial to human greatness.

Mr. Mansfield, a professor of government at Harvard, is author of "Manliness" (Yale, 2006).

 

[cantdog]

You can "reflect critically" on your beliefs and values, but this is for the purpose of learning how to defend them with "reasoned arguments." It isn't for the purpose of giving you a taste of the life of the mind while you are at college.

Antecedents. I thought I knew what the para was about, but the referent for "it" seems to have shifted in midsentence here, and I can't tell any more. Got a hint?

 

[cantdog]

But in the end, because we lack a principle to guide choice, it turns out that we must tamely "adapt to change."

It turns out we must? In what way does it turn out?

In fact, the author seems broadly sarcstic at times, and acts as though he is engaging in a parody, other times, but he doesn't tell us what he's parodying, nor about what he is being sarcastic. In other sentences, he seems, rather, to be soberly stating arguments, instead of sarcasms, but he swaps out of one mode to the next in mid-paragraph, so one can hardly be sure where the sarcasms leave off and the argument, if argument it is, begins.

With no quotes or samples from his "Harvard Report" to go by, I'm afraid the few paragraphs of screed we have here go nowhere. I hope this wasn't all there was to the article, because if so, it is meaningless.

 

[Liar]

Principles eh?

"But in the end, because we lack a principle to guide choice, it turns out that we..." and so on.

But nowhere in the text is this established. Just that it's not the author's principles that everyone must heed to. It is based on the premise that there is, and must be, one unifying holy grail of a principle that guides everyone's personal choice. It's right there in the phrase "we lack a principle", and it tells a lot about the author's premise. It sees like he can't fathom the concept of "principles".


And Rox, why are the u-sus singled out for a challenge in not "denigrating the author"? Is there something you want to say with that? If so, it's a pretty roundabout way to say it.

Anyway how did I do? Denigate anyone?

 

[cantdog]

Are we allowed to check out the "Harvard Report" to which he so elliptically refers? Or is that ruled out by the, um, challenge? Is there a larger context into which this excerpt fits, or is that also off-bounds?

 

[cantdog]

Sorry, kid. Not meaty. Confusing.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'm sorry but I am having difficulty determining exactly what his point is and thus have difficulty responding to it.

To the idea of greater freedom in course selection (which I think is at least the main topic of the article), I think it is a good idea but can be dangerous. Some students will overly inundate themselves with only their area of focus and thus limit their continued education in other fields where they may be severly lacking such as history or composition which may have unintended factors on their later chosen careers. (Go into a university and read some of the published scientific articles from smaller magazines. Many will be written passably well, but you will also run into those articles where it is impossible to learn anything at all from the jumble of bad writing and knowledge assumptions.) Still, that same freedom of choice can also prevent students from being in classes they despise and thus turning them off from their chosen field despite genuine interest in talent. There would be less instances of separating the stubborn from the merely interested. Overall though students would be happier though you'd run into fundamental logjams as popular classes to take may not coincide with popular classes to teach and vice versa. In general summation though, it's an intriguing idea that may down the line need more spit and polish but may be able to survive.

Um on the liberals bad, hate choice, but we should hate choice of teachers to teach what they want section which I may or may not have been able to decipher through his ironicly postmodern arguments (no comment on his ability as a writer or his worth, merely my near inability to muddle through his choice of prose (I've always had a bit of a weak spot in my intelligence as far as postmodernism and metaphysics go)), I would have to say "huh?" It seems he is assuming that if students were allowed choice on general education they would naturally choose to have retreads on their current base of knowledge and that they wouldn't want to expand that circle of familiarity and that teachers are being anti-choice and freedom for exercising their own choice as far as what to teach. This argument seems to argue for students an assumption of conformity and for the teachers an expectation of conformity. If this is indeed an actual argument in the text, I find it disturbingly ironic.

So, yeah, after that, it seems to lambast those teachers who do teach the "Great Books" that he is expecting everyone to want to learn and everyone to want to teach not of not being taught but not being taught how the author appears to like them.

From there it got really hard to follow. Am I correct in assuming that it is denigrating people for not choosing correctly or maybe it was the institution not having good enough allowances for choice or something. Um, I'm just going to assume those. If I'm wrong, bitchslap me like the little moron that I am. So it's something about liberal education bad and something about globalization which I think he was trying to state America good, western society good for, but his sarcastic(?) aside made a good point as well. And that came from change I think, so apparently that's the only venue of change governing our society(?). Maybe? The assumptions seem odd here I have to admit.

Um I think the overall message is an attempt to explain why everyone should only want to learn and teach about western society and only in the method the author ascribed (at least in terms of not denigrating). So I think it's an attempt to further argument that students are choosing not like he wants and teachers are not choosing or teaching like he wants and how that is "inconceivable" to quote the Sicilian.

Overall though, these are just what I can glean. This is not at all, I must write down in stone to insinuate the man is a poor writer or even poor constructor of arguments, only that I as an individual with careful reading am having a hard time following it.

The concluding paragraph is much more clear. Liberal education bad, current system bad, and they are not really alive(?). Okay, it's a little vague too, but the very ending argues that the classes he wants taught are religion and America as the sole things taught in general education. He also blames the professors for this state of affairs for not choosing to teach them or at least not teach them in the method he wants them taught and while he lets students off here, he did blast them in the vague area for not having their choices guided by principle and not choosing as he believes they should have been choosing.

Given all that, it seems that his argument for the program is that it would have been good if they had taught the classes he wanted, in the way he wanted, because he believes that all students would only want to learn such things. I assume any deviation from this expectation would be "inconceivable". Thus the argument and article seem to overall call for a very low freedom system which also confirms the values the author believes are universal. However this same conformist system seems to simultaneously claim that freedom should naturally bring it to rise and if the ultra-free system isn't doing so, it is only attributable to malice.

In my opinion and on side topic this seems conformist and autocratic and while it is true that anarchy is quickly replaced by conformist autocracy, I dislike the idea of that as a world I'd like to live in. As such, I am usually hesitant about people who view that as a good thing. But then, I am non-conformist, a perenially square peg. As such it always makes me edgy when people argue freedom and then state a world of freedom as being a world wherein everyone is free to think exactly like themselves. This is side topic of course and I refrain from making any absolutist or indeed value statements at all about the author or his morals. They are simply different from my own for the purpose of this response. I'm just saying that once I had quasi-deciphered what he was saying, it gave me a creepy feeling personally.






Does that satisfy Appleby? I expect as Happy Fun Ball's earliest hacky-sack player I fitted into the clarion call.

 

[Pure]

comments

the author appears to be talking about a report, but since it deals with choice, he informs us of his general theory or position that choice is empty or lame or meaningless unless guided by principle.

perhaps he's following Rand or some other 'virtues' writer. as a couple posters have pointed out, he really does not present an argument for this position, but in Roxanne's terms 'sneers' at it.
it is not a bad position, but he gives no reasons for holding it. EXCEPT

he has the following rather backhanded 'argument' in the latter part of the paper:

Second, I have not yet completed the logic of choice. When choice is without any principle to guide it, those who must make a choice look around for something to replace principle. They fasten on the fact of change: "Change is the essential condition of modern life," says the report. Change is caused by mindless "forces" that human beings cannot control, for example the advance of technology. This is precisely what makes living by principle impossible; no principle can withstand the fact of change, so that fact becomes our principle and our guide. The purpose of general education is to prepare students "to adapt to change."

When you first hear the idea of choice, it sounds bracing. But in the end, because we lack a principle to guide choice, it turns out that we must tamely "adapt to change." A principle would give you a purpose to hold to, providing refuge in misfortune and admonition in success. Adapting to change leaves you at the mercy of impersonal forces that care nothing for you or your choice. In order to "meet their responsibilities" students must be "responsive to the conditions of the 21st century." Your responsibility is not to do what is right, nor even to do what you think is right. It is to be reactive. You are recommended to exercise your choice by surrendering it to whatever is coming next.

Here there is actually an argument:
1) Without principles one focuses on 'change.' (and dealing with it)
2) In particular one ends up devoting oneself to 'adapting to change,' i.e., being 'reactive.'
3) This is, according to the author, an inferior way to live.

----
I see no reason to think that 1) is true. The author doesn't give any. But let's let it go.

Of particular importance is 2); yet i see no reasons for thinking 2) is true. I suppose he may be saying that without a 'big picture', one's choices are narrowly focussed on the here and now.

As to the conclusion, it does not really follow from 1) and 2). I suspect that's what the author thinks he's promoting all along.
It's better to live by 'principle' than by 'reacting' to change.

There aren't really any good reasons or arguments given. However I do see that there is something to be said for having a 'big picture' in one's life, and some overarching values. Given that this is plausible, we've read a lot of words that do not have the effect of making think it even more so. He deals in insinuations and rhetorical flourishes, mostly.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

So Harvard has been taken over by "trendy thinkers," and should get back to basics, eh? Not only are the students influenced by it, but the professors are even moreso at fault... they want to take the "great works" down a peg or two... they got something to prove, in other words?

I don't idealize or uphold anything as absolute, so I'm all for "choice" in education... like, choosing not to attend public institutions to learn in, in the first place? I think it's rather a moot point, on both sides. There won't be much learning going on, just assimilating and regurgitating. Whether it's assimilating and regurgitating the "Great Works" of the "Classics" or some new trendy idea, it really doesn't matter much...

 

[Liar]

Here there is actually an argument:
1) Without principles one focuses on 'change.' (and dealing with it)
2) In particular one ends up devoting oneself to 'adapting to change,' i.e., being 'reactive.'
3) This is, according to the author, an inferior way to live.

----
I see no reason to think that 1) is true. The author doesn't give any. But let's let it go.

Of particular importance is 2); yet i see no reasons for thinking 2) is true. I suppose he may be saying that without a 'big picture', one's choices are narrowly focussed on the here and now.

As to the conclusion, it does not really follow from 1) and 2). I suspect that's what the author thinks he's promoting all along.
It's better to live by 'principle' than by 'reacting' to change.

Thing is, I couldn't find any supporting argument in the text that said that the question of 1) was even relevant. Without principles one focuses on 'change.' Possibly. But who is without principles? mansfield pretty much claims that everyone but he is without, and builds the rest of the realpolitik conclusions about the study requirements at Harvard on that, without backing it up with, as far as I can tell, anything.

Am I missing something?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Obligation fulfilled, I have side questions if you would care to hear them or you can ignore them or ask me to create a new thread for them if you think they are too distracting from the initial topic.

First, what is you opinion on accepted practice on citing someone's previous or other work or organizational ties of an author when discussing their article?

Certainly I agree that the non-sequitur is annoying. Saying that an article about say American fish stocks or perhaps even global warming is not to be trusted because the author once wrote an article wondering if kitten raping was really as bad as we think it to be is ludicrous. One's opinions on something that removed can hardly be expected to color the current debate. In truth this method sees the most use among politicians and pundits especially far-right pundits who will bring up the most controversial thing an author has ever said in order to remove them from any attempt at debate on a completely different subject to that statement and give the pundit the feeling of moral high ground.

Of course, seeming non-sequiturs can be useful at least in my opinion if they show distinct political leanings and the debate is closely tied to a current political debate. An example would be calling the validity of a "scientist's" statement on global warming due to their subsequent ties to Greenpeace or an organization funded by Exxon. One would be less likely to hold their words as gospel with this information and this information is pertinent.

Also acceptable in my mind is the linking of one's statements to held views. Such as a seemingly innocent argument against something linked to the women's movement. If the author of this piece has been on the record as consistently arguing against women's rights and has called for the stripping of said rights then it is pertinent to the debate.

Also important are political ties in understanding motivations. A seeming call for "ideological balance at the college level" should have considered the political leanings of the articles that call for it as well as those that argue against it. It should also consider qualifications of the author. If one author in the deabte is a fairly moderate with maybe slight leanings who is a highly qualified and respected professional in the most pertinent industry and the other is a heavily political talking head who has nothing but the most tenuous of connections to the industry and a very bad record, then the two views should not be thought of as equal as our current media does.

However, I agree that the political method of slandering a belief by the personal indescretions of the author are uncalled for in debate. Whether or not one has been caught molesting a kitten doesn't mean that they fail to be an expert on say social security or that they do not have worthwhile and respectable ideas.

Anyways, what are your views on the subject? How do you balance all this out?

 

[Pure]

hi liar,
i you and others are correct in NOT finding much by way of argument.

the whole piece has a kind of Rand flavor: a polarity or dichotomy is set up. various terms are 'defined' or explicated and the intended effect to hold up one end of the dichotomy. [one might add that the dichotomy itself may be suspect, as when a Xtian says, "let's discuss whether marriage according to God's law is better than 'living in sin.']

in effect we have this alleged dichotomy: acting on principle vs. adapting to change.

from there it's suggesting that 'adapting to change' is 'reacting', again we're shown a similar dichotomy: acting vs. reacting.

he principally denigrates the latter, as follows:

But in the end, because we lack a principle to guide choice, it turns out that we must tamely "adapt to change." A principle would give you a purpose to hold to, providing refuge in misfortune and admonition in success. Adapting to change leaves you at the mercy of impersonal forces that care nothing for you or your choice. In order to "meet their responsibilities" students must be "responsive to the conditions of the 21st century." Your responsibility is not to do what is right, nor even to do what you think is right. It is to be reactive. You are recommended to exercise your choice by surrendering it to whatever is coming next.

adapting is done 'tamely'; it leaves one 'at the mercy of impersonal forces' and it's 'surrendering.'

in current political rhetoric it's 'cut and run.'

the other pole is 'a refuge in misfortune' and an 'admonition in success'. in other words it's strong, effective, and manly.
--

the topic of living by prinicple is a worthy one, and Rand and others have addressed it: it's good to at least occasionally refer oneself to the 'big picture.'

this particular author does not go deeply into the issues, but mostly flogs the end of the polarity he doesn't like, as a way of elevating 'living on principle.'
--

 

[wazhazhe]

the author appears to be talking about a report, but since it deals with choice, he informs us of his general theory or position that choice is empty or lame or meaningless unless guided by principle.

I believe this is the report referred to in the article.

Preliminary Report; Task Force on General Education

 

[amicus]

Page 3: “…ah, PDF document this I cannot cut and paste. Deals with the definition of ‘liberal’ education but defines it in such a way as to be meaningless. It also disparages ‘utilitarian or pre-professional’ as not the purpose or intent of Harvard.


“Four ‘overarching goals of education…”

“Prepares students to become citizens of a democracy within a global society…” Again, an almost meaningless goal without differentiation within that is promoted as a ‘global’ society. It can be interpreted so as to give equal weight to dictatorships and nations that are civilly oppressive.

“Prepares students to adapt to change…”

“Education components…” You will have to read for yourself…

Further on down…”Core courses are not introductions to discipline they are exposures to major areas of change and influence in the 21st century….”

“Students are required to take seven courses offered in five areas of inquiry and experience: Cultural traditions and cultural change, The ethical life, The United States and the world, Reason and faith, Science and Technology…” (emphasize ‘stem cell research in a prior paragraph)

Page nine seems to advocate abolishing letter grades for core courses but still having those courses, ‘count’ in core requirements?

At the bottom of page 10 one might interpret the ‘many canons’, meaning absolute carved in stone, Harvard Classic containing all one needs to learn about humanity…meaning, again changes according to interpretation which is in itself ambiguous.

A continuation of the assault against ‘canon’s in that national or even regional literature is not a foundation of knowledge, but rather (last thirty years) has become a global one, thus diminishing the emphasis on western culture in favor of a more ‘global’ flavor.

Top of page 12, both totalitarian and democratic nations have exercised control over literature and art, therefore, one should not prefer one over the other on that basis…(interesting, eh?)

Middle page 12 “NewYork/Paris/Moscow…” “define high art and literature…” That is a belly laugh if you think about it.

“Western and non western culture (high literature and art?) since there is little or no ‘non western’ high art, who are we kidding here?

***

Well…I scanned ahead to about page 21 and decided I had had enough. “Competing ethical theories…” as if the ethics of genocide is worthy of consideration in the same breath as basic human ethics.

It is, as the article sarcastically said, a total rejection of reason and principle in terms of human history and achievement and welcomes a new era of subjective relativism given a stamp of approval by Harvard University.

And to think the ‘Five foot shelf of books’ The Harvard Classics, 50 volumes as I recall, formed a major portion of my early education. I guess I wasted years reading those classics and the adjunct follow ups they led to, woe is me, a wasted youth.

By the way, thanks to whoever left the link,(wazhazhe, I just looked) I had planned to struggle through all of it but lost interest.

Amicus….

 

[Oblimo]

I admit to having trouble parsing this essay, possibly because I lack its context. The author seems to be arguing that the referenced report is founded on faulty policies of relativism.

For example:

Our postmodern professors, however, do not care for principles. Principles would be a guide for one's choice of courses, such as the goal of coming to college in order to open one's mind. But this report says that the goal is to put students "in a position from which they can choose for themselves what principles to be guided by."

Is he saying that you cannot "choose guiding principles" because if you could, what you were calling "guiding principles" were never really principles in the first place?

In other words, I cannot tell if this essay is a critique on the language of the report, or of the report's substantive findings, or both.

 

[JamesSD]

Oooh, I'll be the prof and offer critique of this essay! Of course, I can be a snarky grader rather than having to be professional.

The recent Harvard faculty report on general education has made waves for its new requirements to study America and religion. These may be good -- we shall see -- but the report is more remarkable for the trendy thinking it reveals in the higher reaches of American education.

Your use of the word "trendy" here is inapropriate and not supported by your future arguements.

The dominant practice of Harvard now is choice. Students should be able to choose the courses they want to take. The practice applies also to professors, who are permitted to choose the courses they want to teach. I say this is the "practice," not the principle, because a principle would say why choice is most important and what goal is to be sought from it. Our postmodern professors, however, do not care for principles. Principles would be a guide for one's choice of courses, such as the goal of coming to college in order to open one's mind. But this report says that the goal is to put students "in a position from which they can choose for themselves what principles to be guided by."

Again, please strike the word "postmodern" from your essay, for so many reasons. You also fail to suggest why choice is not a principle to my satisfaction, but at least you tried.

Please strike the next paragraph entirely. It is long, and says almost nothing.

You used way too many words and said very little. Please learn how to be concise and careful with your word choice. Also, you need to construct your arguement without making so many pre-set assumptions. You accused the report as being "vague and unavailing", and yet your essay is guilty of the same faults.

Still, there was a good arguement and solid sentence structure: C+. You can do better.

 

[Pure]

i think it's important to keep emphasizing that positions like
1)'we need more emphasis on rigorous ethics'
2)'we need to learn the virtues'
3) 'we need to live lives based on principle'

have something to be said for them. that, notwithstanding that 'moral decay' screeds are apparently as old as civilization itself [there's an ancient Egyptian example, iirc].

the author could have said something about the third point, but he didn't, really. he employed rhetoric to suggest the flabbiness and passivity of what he sets up as the contrary position.

upon reflection it's quite odd that hybrid positions like "the best way to adapt to change is by living one's life by one's principles" seem not to have occurred to him. in his universe they are not genuine possibilities.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Are we allowed to check out the "Harvard Report" to which he so elliptically refers? Or is that ruled out by the, um, challenge? Is there a larger context into which this excerpt fits, or is that also off-bounds?

LOL - Yes, Cant, you're allowed to check, but I really don't think it's necessary. I don't think he's all that opaque, although his language is confusing in places. He i using a lot of shorthand, and assuming that the readers are already engaged in the debate. Which all of us us here are.

I think he gives away which principles he's discussing when he cites "modernity, the invention of the West." They are the principles that I have often stated here. His objection is the one I have oft stated - the rejection of any principles, period, and he sarcastically uses the Harvard statement to illustrate what empty vessels are the substitutes that Harvard pretends are substitutes - "choice" and "change."

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

LOL - Yes, Cant, you're allowed to check, but I really don't think it's necessary. I don't think he's all that opaque, although his language is confusing in places. He i using a lot of shorthand, and assuming that the readers are already engaged in the debate. Which all of us us here are.

I think he gives away which principles he's discussing when he cites "modernity, the invention of the West." They are the principles that I have often stated here. His objection is the one I have oft stated - the rejection of any principles, period, and he sarcastically uses the Harvard statement to illustrate what empty vessels are the substitutes that Harvard pretends are substitutes - "choice" and "change."

What does the rejection of principles mean though, because I didn't get any of what you got out of it?

Everyone has principles don't they even if that principle is the extreme importance of laziness and apathy? And how are choice and change "bad" for "principles"? According to the very idea of modern Western society, choice and change are considered values?

Is it philosophic word choice (I'm a science major) that means something different than its common usage? Or is it as I interpreted it, a shallow attempt to yell at those who use choice to choose values and the importance of objects the author wouldn't choose (the old "everyone has the freedom to think like me" argument)?


What are principles?

 

[cantdog]

Whatever. The reader has to supply both the context and the arguments, because the author provides neither. Once the reader has come up with some things, as pure and others did, which plausibly might fit into the matrix of sarcasms and elliptical references, it turns out that they don't mean much.

i think it's important to keep emphasizing that positions like
1)'we need more emphasis on rigorous ethics'
2)'we need to learn the virtues'
3) 'we need to live lives based on principle'

have something to be said for them.

Maybe. Why doesn't Mansfield take the position? State the damn thing? No, all he does is sneer at some other position in some Report. He does sneer in a way which seems to mean he must, somewhere offstage, have a position something like that. I'll give him that. But the reader can't be sure enough of it to go ahead and engage the position, because there's still an even chance that Mansfield means some other position. And what kind of ethics? Which ones? Which Principles? Do I have to supply those, too?

I think he gives away which principles he's discussing when he cites "modernity, the invention of the West." They are the principles that I have often stated here. His objection is the one I have oft stated - the rejection of any principles, period

Good of him to drop a hint. Let's look at it. "modernity, the invention of the West," you say, eh?

And what is the change we must adapt to? To succeed at being trendy you have to identify the trend accurately. The main one given is globalization -- obvious enough, one might say. But what is globalization? Is it the extension of Western civilization in politics, economics and culture, in which the West can take pride? Or is it the encounter with other cultures that will shame us for our willful ways? To answer, one must form a reasoned judgment about the pros and cons of the West, and, not incidentally, consider why change is essential to modern life (as the report says) rather than life in any era. Isn't modernity the invention of the West? If so, isn't adapting to change an imperative peculiar to the West?

No, I guess I still don't see him giving much away. I guess I need to bow out. I can't tell for the life of me what the hell he means, here.

The whole flavor of this thing is like Charley H's "form" thread, for me. It's like putting your head in a bowl of spinning mush. No, thanks.

 

[cantdog]

The larger context seems to be the "Great Books" idea, which I did hear one echo of, in all my reading. That echo was in Robert Pirsig's book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It seemed to be, in that book, some sort of philosophical notion about pedagogy, if I remember. But Mansfield assumes I know the drill. He seems to be opposing the "Great Books" approach to the Report's approach. I would have to do a lot of research to become conversant with either one, and I don't much care about pedagogy.

See, I have a bachelor's degree, but I spent most of my time in college learning languages. French, German, Anglo-Saxon, Icelandic to read some of the Eddas, and enough to piece out medieval French and Middle English for the purposes of understanding the evolution of the two languages.

I took some bullshit, you kinda have to, and I found I could give the profs some bullshit in a paper and do fine, if the subject were literature or education theory, sociology, anthropology, and such things. Whereas, in a French class, either you knew how to handle the French or you didn't, and no bullshitter stood a chance. I left the bullshit to the pros. The idea that what I was learning and how much I was learning was quantifiable appealed to me.

I have certain tastes in regard to the bullshit I read, too. I want the bullshitter to say it out loud so I can tell what he means. Let's just have a discussion, raw, about certain Principles, if you like; I am not averse. But to start from this article is just ludicrous.