Skip to main content

Liberal Education

Brit blogging I'm still off as I don't feel much like writing at the moment. I do still have the energy to pass along good reads, as I did with von Balthasar the other day. Via Blimpish, here are two left leaning Englishmen making me wish activity of this sort was occurring on this side of the Atlantic as well. I'm still Tory and it is hard to imagine any circumstance that could lead me to vote left, but - stepping back just a moment - as Joe Citizen I would like to see Canadians offered strong platforms from all of the parties. I hate the way this country seems to be locked into the Liberal party and want to see that bug squashed. I'd prefer a Blue squashing to an Orange one, but hey! If the Orange party can do the squashing (rampant speculation on my part, I know) without trashing the place, it would be better than than the current 'kick us again, we're Canadian' voting pattern we've seen since... Well, it seems like it's been since forever. Here is Shuggy's wisdom on the subject of education:
There are really not enough words to describe the absurdity of so-called "liberal" educational theories that this blogger came across during his teacher training: false dichotomies between different forms of learning that I would expect one of my brighter senior pupils to spot within about four minutes; the ludicrous notion that telling a pupil they're wrong represents an "authoritarian theory of knowledge" - are just a couple of the symptoms of the other-worldly disconnection with reality that so disfigures our educational system. For the best take on a true liberal education, more people should turn to the liberal, but self described conservative, Michael Oakeshott. He argued that a truly liberal education had nothing to do with allowing pupils to "do their own thing" or being "contemporary". Rather, the liberty of the pupil is ensured by two things: a) the narrowness of the focus - the teacher is concerned with the delivery of a subject, not some aimless character-building exercise (most teachers, including myself, are not competent to do the latter) b) that what is really liberating about education is that it delivers the pupil from the "tyranny from the here and now". It does this by teaching subjects that represent great investments in human thought, not ones that are fashionable or entertaining. This version of a liberal education is surely preferable to the present situation where at least twenty years of the culture of compulsory euphemism has produced an enormous number of bureaucrat-educationalist whose sole professional function appears to be to receive inflated salaries for their skill in rationalizing failure?
More Leftward reflection offered by James Hamilton:
It's not a good idea to be reading Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" [been meaning to read this book for a very long time now - ed.] whilst pondering the future of the left in Britain. It really isn't. The effective trashing of the idea that nurture has a prevailing imperative over nature; the trashing of the idea that humans in an ideal environment live in harmony with nature and each other; the trashing of the idea that we are more than just biological machines and our faults aren't permanently built in - all answer the question "What's Left" with a sullen "Not much". ... I'm in my local public library, a place that like so many others under the Blair government has refurbished itself from top to bottom. In front of me is the section on American history. It consists entirely of... well, the titles will be familiar to you; suffice it to say that it's just that collection of hucksters, profiteers and rabble rousers who have used the crisis to sell books. The Left is meant to be the intellectual counterweight in politics, but of late we've been breeding monsters. Certain of our more prominent figures have perfected the art of making a fortune from the art of indoctrination. For intellect read conspiracy; for analysis read hysteria. I suppose that's what happens when we assume that we're clever but neglect the life of the mind. There has always been this air of wishful thinking about left wing intellectual activity; one long late evening of Finals revision was enlivened for me by a book with the absurd title Late Capitalism; you can find humour anywhere at three in the morning. Then you might refer to the Webbs turning their faces from murder in Stalin's USSR, or reflect upon the sinking feeling as reopened archives confirmed that McCarthy victim after McCarthy victim were as guilty as charged. We are steadily losing our martyrs, from the Rosenbergs to James Hanratty. Society as a whole is following us into irrational thinking - weren't you shocked to learn that 86% of doctors in Scotland were happy to refer patients to homeopaths? And we think we can laugh at American Intelligent Design...
All I can add is that my own experience backs up Hamilton's assertion. Lefties seem to think that they don't have to argue their case, that it must be assumed and the onus is on anyone who challenges it. Why that should be is likewise unexplained. I don't travel or read in those circles much - not anymore - but my hunch is that Canada's left has a long way to go to catch up to Blair's Labour. In the U.S., the Democrats seem to be involved in some heavy petting with the kind of Left that we have in our Orange party (that's the socialist NDP for American readers) and which is also well represented by the sweaty red boob currently leading the governing Liberal Party. I'm not trying to paint Blair as a saint, but he's had considerably more electoral success than anything on offer on this side of the pond (speaking of the the NDP and the Democrats). I just don't think the Micheal Moore constituency is all that large (loud, yes) and there is therefore a lot more to be gained by pealing off disaffected conservative voters with a moderate message. Here's a negative example from the "centrist" Liberals. I doubt Canada's Left will make any attempt to portray itself as more moderate and more reasonable. Instead, they'll claim that they have the same message, with the added benefit of greater sincerity. The message itself will go unexamined. I suppose such foibles are an occupational hazard when you place yourself at the pinnacle of progress.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi