Dialectic: The Second Art of the Trivium
Introduction: What is dialectic? What is logic?
The second liberal art is logic or dialectic. Dialectic typically refers to the practice of precise discussion, using a question and answer format with facts or apparent facts, to explain or get at the truth. It has another, less academic, use I'll explain later. Logic is a more narrow term, referring to the form of correct argument rather than the whole process. In classical school literature, you'll see the two words used interchangeably (I will as well), this has classical precedent. For instance, the stoics tended to use the word logic to refer to argument, monologue, persuasion, theory, and several other domains. The best definition for logic/dialectic is the art of reasoning for the purpose of discovering or demonstrating the truth. And so logic involves the study of the forms of argument as well as specific arguments. But why study dialectic? Isn't it easier to just go with gut feelings or go a long to get along?
Intellectual Weakness
Nobody wants to be weak. Weakness leads to losing.
Weakness leads to resentment.[1]
Intellectual weakness is perhaps the most subtle weakness.
It compounds itself. Physical weakness makes us feel bad.
Intellectual weakness makes us feel smug or leaves us unable to see our weaknesses, intellectual weakness is like a disease with an immune system of its own protecting it from detection.
Grammar: The First Art of the Trivium
Introduction
The first of the liberal arts is grammar.
The Trivium
Trivium is shorthand for three skills: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Together with arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music they make up the liberal arts. In the current year, a liberal arts degree is simply a degree in reading texts and critical theory.
What is Grammar?
Grammar is primarily the study of understandable language.
Grammar goes beyond simple language, though. C.S Lewis reminds us that ancient grammar instruction included syntax, etymology, prose, the explanation of allusions, history, and eventually scholarship in general. Lewis even remarks that "everything we should now call criticism belonged to either grammar or rhetoric" (The Discarded Image 186-187 and 190).
Eric Johnson's Proposal for Christian Reading
Eric L. Johnson, Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal[1]
Below is a summary of Johnson’s rules for Christian reading. It’s a useful part of his book. Because these are my own words, anything poorly stated is my own fault, not Johnson’s.
- The goal of Christian reading, even leisure reading, is conformity to Christ. Therefore what and how we read matter.
- The Holy Spirit is the Christian reading light. This metaphor indicates that while reading, the Christian is cooperating with the Holy Spirit in coming to have self-knowledge, knowledge about what is being read, knowledge about the author, knowledge about the world, and knowledge about God.
- New Christians should ask wise guides for help in reading, both what to read, and how to understand it.
- There is a natural hierarchy in the texts we read:
- The canon of Scripture.
- Classic texts of the Christian traditions.
- Other quality texts (I would add, classical texts of one’s national, ethnic, or intellectual tradition).
- Inferior texts that aren’t worth reading.
- Bad texts which draw the readers from what is true, good, or beautiful.
- Banned texts, some texts are simply justifiably censured and censored.
- Non-Canonical texts need to be read with trust and suspicion.
- Reading non-Christian texts wisely increases wisdom and is therefore worthwhile.
References
[1] Eric L. Johnson, Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal (InterVarsity Press, 2007), 222-226.Your Calling as a Teacher
One of my favorite lines from classical literature is this brief quote from Socrate’s Apology:
For I tried to persuade each of you to care for himself and his own perfection in goodness and wisdom rather than for any of his belongings, and for the state itself rather than for its interests, and to follow the same method in his care for other things. Pl., Apologia 36cI think that if you’re a teacher of any subject, at any level, this is your calling. Even in the sciences, teaching somebody to be the best rather than to make money, is your calling. This is not always easy and school has almost no connection to the concept of schole (σχολῇ) which constitutes the etymology and the alleged philosophical foundation of our education system.
Anyway, getting students to know things is one thing, but challenging them to think seriously about taking the reigns of their lives is another entirely. You partly do this precisely by making them learn your material. But also by taking personal interest in their development.
On making America great again
Together we will make America Great Again, better than ever before.This political slogan is usually viewed as either a Nazi bigot’s racist screed against all truth and goodness or as an aspiration to be achieved in the unholy walls and halls of DC.
It’s a phrase and sentiment that is not unique to Trump and I recall hearing Bill Clinton say it several times and saw a Reagan speech in class in which Ronald Reagan also said it:
Science Fact of the Day #2: Teacher Somatotype
As in all cases “science fact” is used loosely.
The Main Claim About Teacher Somatotypes
In Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations the authors observed that:"Teachers who are ectomorphic are usually perceived by students as anxious and less composed but perhaps intelligent. The endomorphic teacher is generally perceived by students as slow, lazy, under-prepared, and not dynamic in the classroom. The mesomorphic teacher is perceived as credible, depedable, likable, and competent but possibly tough and dominant." Virginia P Richmond and James C McCroskey, Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations (Boston: Pearson/A and B, 2004), 269For those who don't know:
- Ectomorphs are lanky body types
- Endomorphs are dad-bod types
- Mesomorphs are beefy (muscly) types
Is that a reasonable claim? What is the evidence?
Now, here's where things might get interesting. In this social-psychology text, several paragraphs per page will be riddled with citations. But this particular paragraph cites no studies. Is this just a personal observation? Is it an impression?I don’t know.
William Briggs and Monty Hall
William Briggs explains the solution to the Monty Hall problem:
Many of you will already know the answer, but read on anyway because it turns out to be an excellent example to demonstrate fundamental ideas in probability.That last line is so frequently a problem with academic types. They’re born with above average IQs and they’re used to being the quickest wit in the room. So when they’re presented with obvious reasons that they’re wrong they simply infer that their interlocutor is wrong or stupid. It’s one of the reasons I hate being around academics, they rarely discuss to discover the truth but only to air their opinions.Incidentally, I just did this yesterday to a group of surgical residents [this was in 2012]: you might be happy to know that none of them got the right answer. One even insisted—for a while—that I was wrong.
Paul Graham on what can't be said
I love ideas, data, speculation, experiments, and plans.
I also love arguments, refutations, and attempts at persuasion.
And I think what I love the most about the United States is the general legal consensus that outside of inciting people to acts of terrorism, one is allowed to say what they wish without government censure. In this sense, I am and have always been a free-speech absolutist. If somebody wants to make the case that a grave sin is actually sane and good, I’ll hear it. If somebody wants to claim that mega civilizations can control galaxies for energy and call it science, I’ll listen to Michio Kaku:
Jordan Peterson's Online University
Over at Captain Capitalism, Aaron Clarey made a point I don’t find fully convincing.
It’s a brief and hidden point in a post I otherwise agree with entirely. He mentions Jordan Peterson’s desire to offer a liberal arts education online and calls the degree Peterson would offer worthless.
Now, in context, Clarey has affirmed that which I affirm: that the modern university’s liberal arts program is worthless. He describes it here: