[lit-ideas] Seattle School of Scholasticism -- Open House Friday Next!!
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 15:32:43 EDT
>"I'm an untrained philosopher"
boasts Geary, Director of the Seattle School of Scholasticism. In a recent
interview with "Global Warming: Views from the Air-Conditioning Epistemology",
Geary expanded on the rigours of his training programme.
"We want our graduates to be _trained_, not just educated."
"Trained on what?"
"We want their _wills_ trained -- especially females. We offer a wide
variety of studies. Queer Studies, Transgender Studies, and Transsexual
Studies. So
it's not _your_ idea of a typical 'Training' College."
"You train them in foreign languages, too"
"Yes, Speranza -- a Rumanain -- does that. He speaks a foreign language."
"What's the profile of the graduate of the School of Scholasticism? Is any
research needed to be awarded the degree?"
"We don't really award degrees to the students -- but to their parents. Most
of them are minor and we judge redundant to award anything to a _minor_. But
parents are usually happy, proud, and usually join one of our many Parent's
Alumni Clubs".
"Is the School residential".
"Sure. There's no way of _training_ girls unless they _reside_. Sports are
very important too. Speranza, besides Rumanian, trains them in field hockey.
They call Speranza 'coach' -- and in Rumanan, too. You should see. A delight.
"And what is your role as Director?"
"Well, I have this big office -- and we subscribe to these many different
journals. It's all paid by the Parent's Alumni Association. I'm in charge of
the
Golf Tournaments, too, which we hold in Hawaii."
"Why Hawaii?"
"Why not?"
----
>>"I know _all_ that is relevant to know about _philosophy_ without having
to undergo those stupid farty Heidegger seminars".
That may be true. But who _has_ been trained as a philosopher?
The relevant section in the _oeuvre_ of R. S. Peters seems to be the
section, "Education and training" in his epoch-making (for teacher-training
institutes in the Oxford area), "Ethics and Education" (Allen and Unwin, 1966):
"Confirmation of this conceptual connection between 'education' and
cognitive perspective is provided by exploring the different implications
[implicatures] of talking about 'education' and 'training' in less specialized
spheres.
The hypothesis to be tested is that 'trained' suggests [implicates] the
development of competence in a limited skill or mode of thought whereas
'educated'
suggests a linkage with a wider system of beliefs."
I agree, but I think that to describe "Geary" as "an educated philosopher"
sounds even ruder.
Peters goes on:
"A man [or beardless woman. JLS] with a 'trained mind' is one who can tackle
particular problems that are put to him in a rigorous and competent manner.
An 'educated mind' suggests much more awareness of the different facts and
dimensions of such problems."
"In the different manifestations of mind the link of 'education' with a
wider system of beliefs is amply demonstrable. Why is it, for instance, thata
we
talk more naturally of EDUCATING EMOTIONS than we do of TRAINING them, whereas
we talk more naturally of TRAINING THE WILL than we do of EDUCATING it."
I take exception. Geary's will is educated -- or has been educated by the
Jesuits. I also love Who's Who description of Grice as "e: Clifton and Corpus
Christi (Oxford)".
"This is surely because the different emotions are differentiated by their
COGNITIVE core, by the different BELIEFS that go with them. The fundamental
difference, for instance, between what is meant by 'anger' as distinct from
'jealousy' can only be demonstrated by reference to the beliefs appropriate to
them." ...
"If, on the other hand, we speak, as we sometimes do, of TRAINING THE
EMOTIONS, the implications [implicatures] are different. ... We think for
example
of SCHOOLING a person NOT to give way to grief in a public place. ...
'Training' suggests the acquisition of appropriate appraisals and habits of
response
in limited CONVENTIONAL SITUATIONS [nothing like an open-ended philosophical
discussion as the forum of Lit-Ideas allows for. JLS].
"'Training' lacks the wider cognitive implications of 'education'.
Alternatively, 'training the emotions' may be connected with the development of
strength of will [as Khiron practiced on Achilles. JLS] That is why we speak of
'training the will' rather than 'educating' it. ... Will is the executive that
has to be trained for the more MENIAL functions of sticking fast to a plan,
principle or purpose. ... In respect to their will, which is parasitic on ...
purposes, [people] can only be trained."
"In the moral sphere we talk naturally of 'the training of character'. 'The
training of character' suggesets efforts to ensure reliability of response in
accordance with a code. It would not suggest any endeavour to get the
trainees to understand the 'reason why' of things. 'Sex training' consists in
passing on various skills to do with making love. 'Physical training'
suggesets
merely discipling the body in relation to a narrowly conceived end such as
physical fitness; 'physical education' suggests the cultivation of physical
fitness as a necessary foundation for a balaced way of life."
"If it is said that a person is 'trained' the questions, 'to do what?', 'for
what?' 'As what?', 'in what?' are appropriate. For a person cannot be
trained in a general sort of way. ... It is of course used in an extended
[wrong]
sense, as when we speak of a
'trained philosopher'
or a 'trained mind'. But even in these uses the notion is conveyed that the
person in question can go through some sort of routine, make circumscribed
moves, perform some kind of operation, or attack a problem in a specific and
skilful way."
(This is what always eirenic [bellicose, contestant] Geary had in mind, no
doubt).
"With 'education' however the matter is very different, for a person is
never described as 'educated' in relation to any specific end.
"Soldiers, historians and cooks may be educated men, but men are not
educated for fighting, as historians, or in cooking. "
I would need to consult his "Oxford reader" for 'philosophy of education'
where he disparages if that's the word on so-called 'training college".
In the aforementioned book, his remarks are rather not too concentrated on
one specific section.
"This difference in status [between primary and secondary school teachers]
is exacerbated by poor pay and by the fact that MOST such teachers ARE TRAINED
in Colleges of Education, which are still outside the universities. It is
crucial to the future of teachers TRAINED in such COLLEGES whether their
colleges eventually come completely within the university orbit or stay outside
it.
If they remain outisde, teachers who are TRAINED there are unlikely to
improve their status within the community" (p. 255)."
"In the past they were called TRAINING COLLEGES; but with the lengthening of
the course from two to three years, and with the increasing emphasis on
education as distinct from mere training their name has changed as a result of
the recommendations of the Robbins Committee. They are educational as well as
training institutes."
"On the view here put forward an 'educated' man could be trained in one
sphere, e.g. science [or air-conditioning, as Khiron trained Achilles in] and
yet
be sufficiently congizant of other ways of looking at the world, so that he
can grasp the historical perspective, social significance, or aesthetic merit
of his work and of much besides."
"Some modern advocates of LIBERAL EDUCATION (*Hirst, in Archambault)
however, envisage that people should BE TRAINED, to some degree at least, in
such
other ways of
thinking." This is a much stronger requirement
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Seattle School of Scholasticism -- Open House Friday Next!!
