Secretary Arne Duncan
United States Secretary of Education
LBJ Education Building, Room 7W311
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Secretary Duncan:
I reside in Chicago and I am a well known moral philosopher in the field education and I am the protégé of Dr. Mortimer J. Adler.
.
U.S. Attorney General Holder: "We want to listen to educators, parents, and experts in the field, and find out the best ideas for addressing this urgent problem. We're not interested in just scratching the surface or focusing on generalities, and as we delve into this problem we're not going to protect any sacred cows. We're here to learn firsthand what's happening on our streets so we can devise effective solutions."
As long as you treat violence, drug/alcohol addiction, vicious behavior, etceteras as the problem, instead as a symptom of a moral problem, you are not really addressing the crisis.
Whenever there is something bad or wrong in our communities, cities, states, it is because we (citizens & parents) let it get that way.
Most Americans have lost their moral compass and we are in lock-step with the cultural trajectory of ancient Rome.
When the word education is used today, vocation is meant. Only a true liberal education can save us and that is not even a guarantee.
Our schools are not turning out young people prepared for the high office and the duties of citizenship in a democratic republic. Our political institutions cannot thrive, they may not even survive, if we do not produce a greater number of thinking citizens, from whom some statesmen of the type we had in the eighteenth century might eventually emerge. We are, indeed, a nation at risk, and nothing but radical reform of our schools can save us from impending disaster. Whatever the price we must pay in money and effort to do this, the price we will pay for not doing it will be much greater.
Cordially,
Max Weismann,
President and co-founder with Mortimer Adler, Center for the Study of The Great Ideas and Chairman, The Great Books Academy (3,000+ students)
Cc: Eric Holder
Mayor Richard M. Daley
Monday, October 12, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Confessions of a Middlebrow Professor
W.A. Pannapacker in The Chronicle Review, October 5, 2009 (via Arts & Letters Daily)
We are increasingly ignorant, but we do not know enough to be properly ashamed. If we are determined to get on in life, we believe it will not have anything to do with our ability to reference Machiavelli or Adam Smith at the office Christmas party. The rejection of the Great Books signifies a declining belief in the value of anything without a direct practical application, combined with the triumph of a passive entertainment—as anyone who teaches college students can probably affirm.
--Terrence Berres
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
All Twitter no Tolkien
Diane Ravitch writes that Americans are no longer reading literature and are instead focused on trivial communication such as twitter. She asks some questions I would like to answer:
1) On a recent recommended reading list, why wasn't anything by Mark Twain listed?
Simple. One word. Racism. It just isn't popular any longer and very few people are willing to tolerate the racism in Twain's works.
2) Why "Lord of the Rings"? Must have been due to the movie.
Fantasy literature has always had a hard time getting any respect. Literature snobs won't read it and they assume that, along with science fiction, it is merely escapist. This is certainly true of much of the genre as it is equally true of fiction in general. Lord of the Rings is not of that type, though it certainly has its adventure elements. Here are what I regard as the outstanding elements of the Ring trilogy:
Philosophical: It continues the thread begun in Plato's republic with the parable of the Ring of Gaiges and continued in Wagner's Ring Cycle. In both of those explorations of the lust to power, the cautionary elements were emphasized. Tolkien asks a different question: What would it cost to destroy the lust for power in us? Instead of using the ring of power to kill the king and marry the queen (Gaiges) or to bring the entire cosmos into ruin (Wagner), Tolkien's characters destroy the ring of power at tremendous cost to themselves.
Philological: Tolkien was a professor of medieval literature and created his fantasy world as a showcase for several of his invented languages.
Poetic: Many fans of escapist fantasy literature have trouble with LotR because the plot moves so slowly due to a lot of epic poetry and history building. LotR is a good introduction to epic poetry and inspired me to continue on reading the Iliad, Odessy, Aeneid, L'Morte d Arthur etc.
Theological: Tolkien creates a number of angelic or semi-angelic characters including the wizard Gandalf. He essentially asks the question: if an angel were to come to earth, what would he be like? How does compassion look in the real world?
Political: The legend of the Istari- wizards was that the gods sent them to oppose evil but without overt shows of power. This explores the idea of how we can attempt to change the world in a non-coercive fashion.
Value system: Tolkien creates his elven race (nothing like the traditional elves - these are more like angelic norsemen) to showcase another set of questions: What would a race of immortals value? He shows us a value system that centered on preserving beauty, seeking knowledge and keeping courage alive.
I think Tolkien deserves his place in the literary pantheon right next to Fitzgerald, Shakespeare, Twain and frankly, Asimov and Ellison. If you want literature that can change the way you think about the world, don't discount classic era science fiction and the best of the fantasy genre.
1) On a recent recommended reading list, why wasn't anything by Mark Twain listed?
Simple. One word. Racism. It just isn't popular any longer and very few people are willing to tolerate the racism in Twain's works.
2) Why "Lord of the Rings"? Must have been due to the movie.
Fantasy literature has always had a hard time getting any respect. Literature snobs won't read it and they assume that, along with science fiction, it is merely escapist. This is certainly true of much of the genre as it is equally true of fiction in general. Lord of the Rings is not of that type, though it certainly has its adventure elements. Here are what I regard as the outstanding elements of the Ring trilogy:
Philosophical: It continues the thread begun in Plato's republic with the parable of the Ring of Gaiges and continued in Wagner's Ring Cycle. In both of those explorations of the lust to power, the cautionary elements were emphasized. Tolkien asks a different question: What would it cost to destroy the lust for power in us? Instead of using the ring of power to kill the king and marry the queen (Gaiges) or to bring the entire cosmos into ruin (Wagner), Tolkien's characters destroy the ring of power at tremendous cost to themselves.
Philological: Tolkien was a professor of medieval literature and created his fantasy world as a showcase for several of his invented languages.
Poetic: Many fans of escapist fantasy literature have trouble with LotR because the plot moves so slowly due to a lot of epic poetry and history building. LotR is a good introduction to epic poetry and inspired me to continue on reading the Iliad, Odessy, Aeneid, L'Morte d Arthur etc.
Theological: Tolkien creates a number of angelic or semi-angelic characters including the wizard Gandalf. He essentially asks the question: if an angel were to come to earth, what would he be like? How does compassion look in the real world?
Political: The legend of the Istari- wizards was that the gods sent them to oppose evil but without overt shows of power. This explores the idea of how we can attempt to change the world in a non-coercive fashion.
Value system: Tolkien creates his elven race (nothing like the traditional elves - these are more like angelic norsemen) to showcase another set of questions: What would a race of immortals value? He shows us a value system that centered on preserving beauty, seeking knowledge and keeping courage alive.
I think Tolkien deserves his place in the literary pantheon right next to Fitzgerald, Shakespeare, Twain and frankly, Asimov and Ellison. If you want literature that can change the way you think about the world, don't discount classic era science fiction and the best of the fantasy genre.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Otto A. Bird on The Two Cultures
A surprising, if not startling, omission in the original formulation of the Snow-Leavis controversy over the two cultures was the lack of any reference to philosophy. Yet certainly the most fundamental of all the issues on which they were divided was a philosophical one, namely that regarding our best and most fundamental knowledge.--Otto A. Bird (1914-2009), Cultures in Conflict: An Essay in the Philosophy of the Humanities (1976) p. 125
(Terrence Berres)
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Reviews of Beam's 'A Great Idea at the Time'
Following up on Ambrose Mensch's post, A Great Idea at the Time, here are some of the reviews of Alex Beam's book, A Great Idea at the Time: The Rise, Fall, and Curious Afterlife of the Great Books.
A good read about the Great Books: Long before Oprah’s Book Club, there was..., by Mary Ruth Yoe, University of Chicago Magazine, November-December 2008
Heavy Reading, by James Campbell, The New York Times, November 14, 2008
The great dictators, by Matthew Price, The National, December 26, 2008
The Not-So-Great Books, by Daniel J. Flynn, First Principles, April 20, 2009
A good read about the Great Books: Long before Oprah’s Book Club, there was..., by Mary Ruth Yoe, University of Chicago Magazine, November-December 2008
Heavy Reading, by James Campbell, The New York Times, November 14, 2008
The great dictators, by Matthew Price, The National, December 26, 2008
The Not-So-Great Books, by Daniel J. Flynn, First Principles, April 20, 2009
--Terrence Berres
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
We The People Stimulus Package
Please read Mortimer Adler's statement below and watch the video.
EVERY CITIZEN, BOTH YOUNG, AND OLD!
by Mortimer J. Adler
By "every citizen" I mean not only the persons who are of an age
to exercise the franchise that enables them to participate
actively in political life. I include also those individuals who
will become our future citizens--the young, who, when they come
of age, will take on the responsibilities that the high office
of citizenship puts on their shoulders.
Most Americans, I fear, do not know or appreciate the fact that
citizenship is the primary political office under a
constitutional government. In a republic, the citizens are the
ruling class. They are the permanent and principal rulers. All
other offices that are set up by the constitution are secondary.
The first and indispensable qualification for holding political
office in any of the branches of government is to be a citizen.
Officeholders, moreover, whether elected or selected, are
citizens in office for a period of time, but all citizens are
citizens for life. Officeholders, from the President down, are
transient and instrumental rulers, unlike citizens in general
who are permanent and principal rulers.
The distinction between the permanent status of citizenship and
the transient or temporary character of government officials is
obvious. But it may not be so obvious why I refer to citizens as
the principal and call government officials instrumental rulers.
To understand this point it is necessary to realize that the
government of the United States is not in Washington, not in the
White House, not in the Capitol, which houses the Congress, nor
in any or all the public office buildings in the District of
Columbia.
The government of the United States resides in us--we, the
people. What resides in Washington is the administration of our
government. We recognize this, at least verbally, when we say,
after a Presidential election, that we have changed one
administration for another. That change leaves the government of
the United States unchanged, because its principal rulers are
also its permanent rulers, whereas its instrumental rulers, its
administrative officials--are transient and temporary.
Administrative officials, from the President down, are the
instruments by which we, the people, govern ourselves. They
serve us in our capacity as self-governing citizens of the
Republic. Lincoln never tired of saying that he conceived his
role to be that of a servant of the people who elected him. The
word "servant" in this connection does not carry any invidious
connotations of inferiority or menial status. Rather, it
signifies the performance of an important function, one carrying
great responsibility, a responsibility officials are called upon
to discharge while they are serving a term in public office.
I am sorry to say that most Americans think of themselves as the
subjects of government and regard the administrators in public
office as their rulers, instead of thinking of themselves as the
ruling class and public officials as their servants--the
instrumentalities for carrying out their will.
It is of the utmost importance to persuade the citizens of the
United States, both young and old, that they have misconceived
their role in the political life of this country. If they can be
persuaded to overcome this misconception, and come to view
themselves in the right light, they will understand that their
high responsibility as citizens carries with it the obligation
to understand the ideas and ideals of our constitutional
government.
EVERY CITIZEN, BOTH YOUNG, AND OLD!
by Mortimer J. Adler
By "every citizen" I mean not only the persons who are of an age
to exercise the franchise that enables them to participate
actively in political life. I include also those individuals who
will become our future citizens--the young, who, when they come
of age, will take on the responsibilities that the high office
of citizenship puts on their shoulders.
Most Americans, I fear, do not know or appreciate the fact that
citizenship is the primary political office under a
constitutional government. In a republic, the citizens are the
ruling class. They are the permanent and principal rulers. All
other offices that are set up by the constitution are secondary.
The first and indispensable qualification for holding political
office in any of the branches of government is to be a citizen.
Officeholders, moreover, whether elected or selected, are
citizens in office for a period of time, but all citizens are
citizens for life. Officeholders, from the President down, are
transient and instrumental rulers, unlike citizens in general
who are permanent and principal rulers.
The distinction between the permanent status of citizenship and
the transient or temporary character of government officials is
obvious. But it may not be so obvious why I refer to citizens as
the principal and call government officials instrumental rulers.
To understand this point it is necessary to realize that the
government of the United States is not in Washington, not in the
White House, not in the Capitol, which houses the Congress, nor
in any or all the public office buildings in the District of
Columbia.
The government of the United States resides in us--we, the
people. What resides in Washington is the administration of our
government. We recognize this, at least verbally, when we say,
after a Presidential election, that we have changed one
administration for another. That change leaves the government of
the United States unchanged, because its principal rulers are
also its permanent rulers, whereas its instrumental rulers, its
administrative officials--are transient and temporary.
Administrative officials, from the President down, are the
instruments by which we, the people, govern ourselves. They
serve us in our capacity as self-governing citizens of the
Republic. Lincoln never tired of saying that he conceived his
role to be that of a servant of the people who elected him. The
word "servant" in this connection does not carry any invidious
connotations of inferiority or menial status. Rather, it
signifies the performance of an important function, one carrying
great responsibility, a responsibility officials are called upon
to discharge while they are serving a term in public office.
I am sorry to say that most Americans think of themselves as the
subjects of government and regard the administrators in public
office as their rulers, instead of thinking of themselves as the
ruling class and public officials as their servants--the
instrumentalities for carrying out their will.
It is of the utmost importance to persuade the citizens of the
United States, both young and old, that they have misconceived
their role in the political life of this country. If they can be
persuaded to overcome this misconception, and come to view
themselves in the right light, they will understand that their
high responsibility as citizens carries with it the obligation
to understand the ideas and ideals of our constitutional
government.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Irresponsible Professors and Lonely Students
Students, professors used to think, needed both guidance and those models of human greatness that could help them discover who they are and what to do. One irony, of course, was that when professors offered such guidance, students didn’t particularly need or want it. They often came to college with characters already formed, already habituated to the practice of moral virtue.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
I'm not looking, honest!
The Economist, March 7, 2009, reports from the Physics and Philosophy front on proof of Hardy's paradox.
...two groups of physicists, working independently, have demonstrated that nature is indeed real when unobserved. When no one is peeking, however, it acts in a really odd way.
--Terrence Berres
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
For Philosophers, Dead Is the New 90
Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review, February 13, 2009, recalls his days as a graduate student at Yale arranging for guest speakers.
Michael Levy learned that same lesson when his letter to the editor published in The Wall Street Journal, November 15, 1999, included "[Mortimer] Adler turns in his grave, I am sure...".
(via Arts & Letters Daily)
...I learned that no matter how old a philosopher might be, if still alive — make that, no matter how many years over 100 — one shouldn't presume the good fellow gone.
Michael Levy learned that same lesson when his letter to the editor published in The Wall Street Journal, November 15, 1999, included "[Mortimer] Adler turns in his grave, I am sure...".
--Terrence Berres
(via Arts & Letters Daily)
Saturday, January 24, 2009
But what is it for?
The Economist, January 15, 2009 reports
When Roberto Mangabeira Unger swapped life as a philosopher and Harvard law professor for a place in Brazil’s government, he was given a small ministry from which to think about the future.[ ] His most recent plan is a blueprint for Brazil’s armed forces—an unusual task for a man whose previous life involved writing long, gnomic books about “the radicalisation of indeterminacy”.
--Terrence Berres
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
