Getting Specific is an Essence of Teaching

Plato, The Republic, Bk I, 332 and following

I know I am moving slowly through the Republic, but who is in a hurry?

One of the things that stick out again to me regarding Socratic teaching is the amount of specific content that he rallies to his points. In trying to establish what justice looks like, he goes to a myriad of specific and clear “real life” details to get his pupil to see his point. He is in no hurry to rattle off a platitude and expect that to stick. Line by line he works the questions through a number of aspects in life: medicine, cooking, seafaring, etc.

He is leading the student from that which they can readily agree upon to that which they are discussing. If A, B, and C are agreed between us, then that leads us to D. It seems to be a very powerful form of inductive reasoning. Gathering what I know from specific instances, I can derive the general principle. What I particularly love here is that by leading Polemarchus through this discussion, he draws in the net around him by helping him see the weaknesses in Simonide’s position before he really seeks to establish any alternative. The net draws closer in 334b when he gets Pole. to admit that while Socrates has accurately stated his position, it is not what Pole. meant.

This is where, in dealing with ideas, we wish to get our students. Just for instance, take “kindness.” Most of our students will have a view of this term informed by a rather limited amount of experience and input. Our job is to question the inadequate views they might have of kindness, such as it only being for our friends, or only for those who reciprocate it, or that it is limited to gift-giving, or the like and get them to admit the “smallness” of their thoughts so we can then enlarge them.

This takes time (which we are always short of) and leisure to think about these things before leading other minds into thought about them. God bless us all with an abundance of both.

Aristotle’s Categories, Ch.1-3

I am teaching a logic course using an actual textbook again after several shots at not doing so. For the first time, I am actually enjoying it. I am using Martin Cothran’s excellent, “Traditional Logic” and finding that it hits the kids (so far) just right. All that to say that because he has exercises for them, I use part of class for them to work on these. That allows me reading time. And to that time I have given myself Aristotle’s “Organon” for my enjoyment. Reading Aristotle’s Logic while teaching logic. One might wish he had read it aforehand, but if not so, why not during?

Anyway, I am just in to the first bit. He starts with the grammar of logic. There are lots of terms to understand, and as one gains a grasp on the relationships between these terms, he begins to grasp the logic of Logic.

His first point is that two terms can be equivocal, univocal, or derivative in how they name something. Equivocal names would be calling both a statue and a real man an “animal.” They are, but in differing ways. A man and an ox, however, are univocal terms, having both a name and definition that answer to the same term. Finally it possible to have a derivative term which derives its name from some other name: a courageous man from the word, “courage” for instance.

He begins a wonderful discussion of predicates and their subjects which this poorly taught grammarian only partly gets. I want to go over it in my mind a few more times before I try to put it out on the table.

What grasped me as I read this was that learning a language and learning logic are so intertwined that if the English language is taught well and deeply, much of the work in a formal study of logic would be made so much more easy, if the teacher is aware of such and trained in such himself (oops).

Reading Hard Books

Reading Hard Books

I have recently been discussing with various people the habit of reading hard books.  None of us want to do hard things.  That just is not human nature.  But we also know that most of our gains in life come through the hard path.  Following the path of least resistance can get us into trouble.  So how can we read hard books?  Reading is one of our most volitional acts.  You cannot make anyone truly read anything.  They may drag their eyeballs across the page, but they don’t read unless they choose to.  And that is the rub.

Before defending the act of hard reading, let me state some possible reasons and caveats for why books can be hard.

1. Not all books are created equal.  Some are narrative, some are verse, and some are not.  In my own experience, narrative is easy to read, while “non-fiction” is more demanding, and verse is by far the most difficult.  Other folks would change the order of my views, but we all know that differing genres read at differing levels of difficulty for us.
2. Not all authors are equally clear in their thought, or perhaps just don’t think in a line of thought that we grasp.  When I seek to read Jack Kerouac, I realize this rather easily.  Don’t know the reference?  Look him up and discover what Steve’s hard reading looks like.
3. Not all knowledge is communicated at the same level of thought.  Philosophical discussions are more important to good living than practical ones, but they are certainly harder.

But I am not trying to write a sermon.  You ought to read above your head.  What I want to post are some suggestions on how to accomplish that without going crazy. So the following are my suggestions for reading a hard book (and because I have taught so many folks over the years through Adler’s How to Read a Book, I just know some of his stuff is to follow, but I have long since forgotten exactly what is his and what is mine).

1. With a great or worthy book (one that has been around long enough to have proven its worth by longevity), the primary rule is one of seeking the main idea.  We are all too quick to think that we have to understand it all to get any of it.  This just is not so.  If at all possible, read with “blinders” on.  Don’t get caught up in details; seek the main points.
2. The best way to do “A” is by remembering that you are in a conversation with the author, so ask him questions.  This is less necessary in a story, but important in non-fiction and imperative for verse.  If you don’t know what questions to ask, that is where a great book such as Mortimer Adler’s.
3. Once you have seen the main idea(s), you will find a second read (a little while later) much more rewarding.  This second rule indicates a problem with modern readers: we think once should be enough.  This is again just not so.  The best works deserve to be re-read.  Brain candy is fine for entertainment.  Good and great books need more than a single read.
4. Read with someone.  Two minds can greatly increase understanding. Too many of us try to tackle hard books alone.

I hope these thoughts promote the reading of good and great books.  I will blog sometime on the distinction between good and great books.

Mere Christianity, Book 1, Chapter 1 – The Law of Human Nature

I just love the way Lewis starts this whole book off – forget about wrestling with actual Christian doctrine, first let’s just talk about humans.  The following are questions I was asking or that are brought up in reading the text…

1. Where do we come by this “shared standard of behavior” that we all regularly appeal to?  What does the Bible say about its’ source?

I believe Romans 1 is seminal to this point, and that it is God Who has placed this Law in the hearts of men, ostensibly before the Fall, but certainly at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

2. What is the path of authors that Lewis is resting on when he invokes the phrase, “Law of Nature”?

I am not sure of a full answer here.  It would seem that Aristotle and Plato both build on this same concept.  It seems to be such a universally accepted Western notion that modern folk had to write volumes in an attempt to break from it.

3. What is implied by the fact that this Law of Nature is the only law man is able to choose to obey or disobey?

That of all our study in the laws of nature, such as in science, et. al., this is the only one whose study can actually change what we do.

4. How does Lewis defeat the notion of relative or cultural morality?

He simply points back to human action.  We might seek to intellectually deny such a law, but we act as though it is in place, especially when “wronged” by others.

5. What are the two basic points of this chapter?

That there is a real Law of Nature that all men know, and that all men break this law regularly.

 

 

Mere Christianity, Getting Started

This book should be read or re-read every year by every thoughtful Christian.

I am currently happy to be reading through the work with some parents in my school and as part of my two oldest sons’ homeschool curriculum.

Here on “Speaking of Books” I thought I would simply try to engender discussion by asking questions.  Some of them I have thoughts about, some are beyond me. 

If I have thoughts, I put them right after the question in a “quote” format, just so its easy to see what is what. 

Jump in, the book is great and the thoughts run deep.

Working from an Authoritative Source

Plato, The Republic, Bk I, 331d and following into 332

In the dialogue, Polemarchus pulls a typical teenager move: he asserts an objection and then leaves the room.  He, however, does do something very important – he references an authoritative source.  The dudes have just started discussing what justice is, and Socrates has asserted that the original definition was faulty due its breaking down in given circumstances.  That is when Polemarchus brings in Simonides and then turns the argument over to Cephalus.

This is important if we are seeking to learn from the methods of this dialogue, because working from authority to authority is the essence of good discussion.  Way too much of modern classroom discussion originate from some form of the question, “So what do you think this means?”  I am not dismissing the benefit of having a student seek to express their own thoughts, but all thought comes from somewhere other than just “deep within.”  If we can identify where our thought, in this case a definition of justice, comes from, we may be able to better evaluate and work with that definition and move forward in our discussion of it with others.

Socrates actually jumps on the source, a poet, and accuses him of speaking in riddles, tearing into his definition and showing he can’t possibly mean what he says.  At the classroom level, this is key to bringing a student along in his growth.  If a student has grasped “x” and there are faults with “x,” then being able to discover how it is insufficient is key.  And if “x” came from Dr. Soandso, then questioning Soandso is much easier to swallow than simply going at the student himself.  It is especially helpful if enough is known about Soandso to result in showing how his worldview or prejudice is affecting his explanation of “x.”

The other great thing that is going on here is that the soul of a Christian learner is being cultivated if this type of questioning is used.  Authority is a major issue in education.  What is the authority upon which my beliefs are based?  While not every discussion can be proof texted from the Scriptures (a common problem in many Christian schools, by the by), the Scriptures do inform our principles of authority, humility, knowledge, etc. so that ultimately it is a Scriptural worldview that is informing our discussions.  So if, to over use his name, Dr. Soandso asserts “x” again, we want to examine how his assertion lines up with the authority we trust – Christian thought.

Our students need to practice and see this skill of examining authority a great deal in class before they will be any good with it.  This takes time and conscious planning.  We should regularly seek to have them compare to “authorities” so as to have to make decisions about which view they think is most authoritative and then be challenged on why they think such. This leads to my last love of this passage.  Socrates works hard to make such practice as basic, specific, and “easy” as possible.  He does this by going straight to analogy and metaphor.  “What does a physician do.”  He chooses something known and seeks to illustrate his points from there.  He asks a series of questions to Simonides (not present, but his adherents are) about the profession of medicine to show that justice cannot be simply reduced to “giving what is due.”

I am an Aristotelian much more than a Platonist, but Plato is so clear and so usable for teachers that he just has to be read over and over.  I hope others are enjoying this as much as I am.

Plato’s connection between justice and hope

The Republic, Bk 1, 331 and context

As the Republic begins, Socrates is a guest in the house of an elder man, Cephalus, who is asked by Socrates what the “road of life” looks like on up ahead, Cephalus having traveled further than he.  In his response, Cephalus makes it clear that many of his friends do not care for having grown old, remembering rather the good ol days or finding it tough to deal with physical ailments, but that he has no issues such as they.

With that launching point, Socrates uses Pindar to wonder if conscience might not be the key to enjoying the elder life.  Those who have lived just lives can rest in their later years.  Those who have experienced injustice or been unjust themselves are always looking over their shoulder or assuming that more lies ahead.  And thus we get to justice, and thereby to the point of the book – What is a just society like.

There are several observations from this beginning that I think comment on our work as teachers:

1. Age should be respected, and it is the aging that teach the young to respect it by aging well and properly.  I think for Christians this boils down to humility.  Many grow old and gain crotchety demeanor’s.  Others are made more sweet with age. This says much to those who teach.
2. A major notion here is that hope is born on the back of a righteous conscience.  Those who hope can enjoy life, even older life, but those who have a bad conscience or suffer from injustice lose hope and thereby their ability to enjoy life.  The connection between faith, hope, and love cannot be lost here.  Hope is a huge deal in the life of a classroom.  The love of learning is directly connected to hope in God for the future.
3. Socrates seems very willing to class men by wealth, stating it is so much easier for folks with wealth to enjoy later life (“retirement plan” comes to mind) while the poor struggle their whole life, in particular in the latter years.  When I place that next to Christ’s injunction against being a respecter of persons based on their wealth or power, it would seem that Socrates has it wrong.  But pragmatically, it does seem to hold.  I then think of David’s concern about the just not seeking bread and Solomon’s concerns about abuse of wealth and power, and realize that “justice” is a huge subject that The Republic can only partially deal with. 

More will come, I am sure…

Is it Humility or Cynicism?

One of the most common discussions I seem to have with fellow believers in Christ is whether Platonic Socratic dialogue is laced with sincere humility or faithless cynicism.  I don’t know that I can ever hope to plumb the depths of this question, in part because I would have to look inside Plato’s heart.  But I can think about its implications in my quest for Socratic expertise.

I do believe the question is the best means to learning.  Even if it is the student questioning the teacher’s propositions (or perhaps especially so), the act of asking “is it so” is fundamental to either adding or sidestepping new ideas to one’s own growing view of God and His creation.  So it would seem that the motive is at the heart of our question.  Are we constantly asking questions because we truly know that we don’t know it all?  Or are we asking questions because answers are not believed to be truly possible?  The first would be humble, the second would be cynical.

And that tracks backwards to our notions of hierarchy, creation, and authority.  If there is a Creator (one, not all as one) then He is higher than us.  If He is such, then He has authority, especially as the Creator.  While He has given us direct revelation we believe in His scriptures, He has also in those scriptures made it clear that even the sun, moon, stars, and all other created entities have something to teach us.  So in humility we seek to ask for wisdom from Him through them.

But if we drop these assumptions and instead assume that there is no immovable Mover, but rather suggest either Chaos or circular pantheism is at the heart of all things, then answers will at best be random or only illusions.  Then questioning is powerful as it is the only option.  I can question all things because that is all I have.  This seems to be a unifying act in all the major world religions.  Differing motives drive us all to question.  With that in common, is it possible for those who believe in the One True God to use that fact to our advantage?  And to what extent does the motive behind our questions cause there to be possible gulfs fixed between our questions and the answers we gain from asking them?  Just some questions I have been thinking about…

Socratic Dialogue

Let me ask some questions about asking questions:
a. Is a question more powerful than a statement? Why or why not?
b. What are the limitations of a question?
c. What are the limits of teaching with questions? Are there things that cannot be taught by questions?
d. Why are there so many questions about rainbows, and what’s on the other side?

Plato: Republic – Translations

The first task is to perhaps discuss and choose if necessary one translation to keep us all on the same page. I am familiar with the Grube translation best, but know that others have their preferences. I have not read it various trans, thus don’t have an informed opinion. Jon?