Redeem the Time

What Dan says here about the liberal arts deserves a better response, for which I cannot sit down and collect my thoughts right now . . .
but I also cannot resist a few brief stream-of-conscious-words:

There is much to say in response. One of Mansfield’s most prominent students ripped into the modern university in a great little essay entitled “Who Will Teach The Teachers,” or something like that. It was a nice summary of the rotten start of the modern research university—the ideas behind its structure are all derived from or heavily influenced by Hegel and other Germans of the time. This no one denies. I can’t find it now (instead read this great little piece by said student). Mansfield’s essay that Dan refers to may not be entirely internally consistent itself—but if memory serves correctly, isn’t he arguing FOR Harvard to return back to its roots in the liberal arts, and isn’t that what he consistently fights for? Maybe he is speaking prudently at some points in that piece, but isn’t his point that Harvard needs the liberal arts?

To return to Hegel though (ewww), let’s consider that St. Thomas came to what was new by way of writing commentaries on what was old—this was the method of the scholastics (and is similar to the method of the Straussians), and is opposed to what most dissertations are encouraged to do nowadays: add their two cents to an inflated, ever-growing, completely disorganized and unprincipled body of atom-like, particular “truth-claims” that are constantly trying to say something “totally new.” And the world spirit gives great glory to itself . . .

But then, why the opposition between the liberal arts and research in the first place—who ever said that research is bad? The debate is only over how the university should be ordered, and hence the true place of research in education and man’s attempt to know what truly is. Of course St. Thomas (or for that matter, Aristotle or Plato), would be all for research for the sake of man coming to know truth. The real questions lurking in the background here are about the structure and end of the university, and in order to answer these questions and conceive of a university one must make a statement about the division and method of the sciences.

There was a time when Harvard was the heir of the medieval universities—many of our nation’s founders were required to prove the existence of God in Latin in order to graduate, and this despite the nominal rejection of Catholicism and Scholasticism of their day—back then the schools were still structured along scholastic lines. Over time they outright rejected this approach, and embraced a new way that—in part (like all things, not all of it was bad)—stemmed from new ideas. You must judge those philosophical ideas if you want to defend or oppose the concept of the modern research university.

TAC is only an undergraduate education, and a start. I don’t think that as an institution that college ever said they were opposed to graduate education, or a graduate school (properly set up—which Mansfield doesn’t think Harvard is). Of course there is a place for writing the sorts of books that he has written. It is truly unfortunate if TAC students think otherwise, but I don’t see what in their program or education would make them think such a thing.