Education

Epistemology: Knowledge, Understanding or Both

by C. P. Lawrence

Epistemology: Knowledge, Understanding or Both

Have you ever said, “I do not understand?” I am sure you have, but have you ever thought about what it means to understand? It seems so basic a concept that everyone should understand what it means to understand, but do we? Do we understand in the same way as we used to understand? Is understanding someone the same as understanding something? This post explores understanding through the lens of philosophy.  

It is fascinating to read that this concept of understanding, in philosophy, has been “sometimes prominent, sometimes neglected and sometimes viewed with suspicion,” as referenced in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), which was my main resource for this post (Grimm, 2024). As it turns out, understanding, or as it is known in philosophical circles, epistemology, differs depending on time frame. Who knew? 

Let me start with the word “epistemology,” which was formed from the Greek word episteme, which, for centuries, was translated as knowledge, but in the last several decades “a case has been made that ‘understanding’ is the better translation” (Grimm, 2024). This is due, in part, to a change in the semantics of the word “knowledge.” That change was prompted by a shift towards observation as the primary means of obtaining knowledge, which is not so much a change in understanding as it is in the semantics of knowledge. But, should that change how we define understanding?

The SEP references theorist Julia Annas, who notes that “episteme [is] a systematic understanding of things” as opposed to merely being in possession of various bits of truth. We can know (knowledge) what molecular biology is, but that does not mean that we understand molecular biology. There is a clear difference between knowing something and understanding something, or at least there used to be. Both Plato and Aristotle, according to the SEP, considered “episteme” as an “exceptionally high-grade epistemic accomplishment”. They both viewed episteme as both knowing and understanding. The Greeks and most of the Ancients valued this dual idea of understanding and yet, according to the SEP, subtle changes in the semantics of the word took place over time, moving the semantics of episteme from knowing and understanding to just knowing, which, in my opinion, allowed observation a more prominent role regarding understanding. The question is, did observation improve our understanding of understanding? 

There are many theories on why this shift in the semantics of understanding occurred, but it did occur. My concerns do not center on the “why”, but instead, they center on the impact of this shift on present understanding. The idea of understanding went through a period in the past where its overall importance diminished and was replaced by the idea of theorizing, which is not understanding but speculation. According to the SEP, theorists throughout history have proposed various theories about understanding, and most theories did two things: they pulled us away from the original idea of understanding and pushed us towards a focus on self. It was self that was understanding’s biggest threat in the past and it is self that continues to be its biggest threat presently.

When I read that understanding was neglected in the past, I struggled to make sense of why it was neglected. Who would not want to understand? It was only when I understood that, at the time, understanding was thought to be primarily subjective and psychological, with a focus more on an understanding that was familiar, that it made more sense to me.  Familiarity is the idea of being closely acquainted with something or someone. Regarding familiarity’s impact on understanding, it pushed it towards self and away from the dual idea of knowledge and understanding. This push mutated understanding into what equates to an opinion, making it foundationally subjective, that is, until it bumped into science. In the world of science, understanding, or as it is often referenced, epistemology, was forced to move away from subjectivity and towards objectivity to interact with positivism, which was foundationally dominate in science until recently. 

According to the SEP, the notion of a subjective understanding inside epistemology was, rightfully, downplayed in the philosophy of science due, in part, to the efforts of Carl Hempel (Grimm, 2024). Hempel and others were suspicious of this “subjective sense” of understanding and its interaction with science. According to Hempel, “the goodness of an explanation” had, at best, a weak connection to understanding, especially regarding real understanding. Hempel’s point was that a good explanation might produce understanding but then again, it might not but it would still be familiar and seem like understanding. That was not objective, which was needed in science. The work of Henk de Regt made a distinction between the feeling of understanding and real understanding. He argued that “the feeling is neither necessary nor sufficient for genuine understanding.” His point, which seems straightforward, was that real understanding had little to do with feeling. Feeling is not scientific nor is it objective. It is always rooted in self, which is not understanding. 

Understanding is thought to be a deep knowledge of how things work and an ability to communicate that knowledge to others. This presented a question: what is real understanding? According to the SEP, there are multiple positions regarding this one question. It is interesting to note the presence of “luck” in positions of understanding, with one position asserting understanding as akin to full blown luck (the fully externally lucky position). This is where I defer from the SEP and dismiss the idea of luck altogether. These positions assert, in subtle ways, understanding as a pragmatic product-oriented method; all that seems to matter is that you understand, which, by all indications, would not be true for true understanding. True understanding is being able to explain to others in detail the understanding you understand. The fully external lucky position is rather pragmatic and contrary to this idea of understanding. It seems to stop at one’s understanding and does not consider that to truly understand, one must be able to pass on the understanding one understands to another. 

The contrasting position argues that one needs to understand in the “right fashion” in the right manner to understand again, and for me, the word “again” is key. In other words, understanding, to be considered as understanding, always needs to be replicated in a way that can be communicated to others so that they understand, and to do that one must understand the process every time and not just one time. The first position, for me, violates the duality of understanding and knowledge. This is important because, for me, it is the duality that completes understanding. To understand a concept, one must know what the concept is and understand how it works. The first position, the fully externally lucky position, blends knowledge and understanding into something that loses the semantics of both, pushing understanding into a pragmatic area where understanding becomes almost tangible, discounting the process in favor of it as product. This is not understanding but a lower form of knowledge. True understanding is always a process that explains how the product became, how the product works and how the products is applied. 

There are those who argue that understanding does tolerate “certain kinds of luck.” These philosophers hold positions that understanding can be “partly externally lucky.” Is it me or does luck have no place in understanding? If luck has any place in understanding, then that understanding is not understanding but a stumbled upon form of knowledge. No one stumbles onto a medical degree nor the knowledge needed for it. Most would not equate this as the proper application of their position, but understanding builds on itself, and if it does that, then, this application is not as stretched as it would seem. I believe the idea of understanding goes beyond the discussion in this post. It is an esteemed element of our humanity. It is who we are as human beings, and a large part of what makes us a human being.  

There are those—and the number grows daily—who no longer value understanding nor want to spend energy doing it. They consider it an antiquated process and no longer needed because we have technology, specifically, we have AI to do all our understanding for us, right? But do we? Does AI help us understand or does it only provide explanations? Are explanations understanding or are they something else? I believe understanding is distinctly human. I believe it is how we interact and build community. Maybe we don’t need to understand chemistry (I think there will always be a need to understand chemistry and everything else.), but we will always need to understand each other because we all are different. 

If we no longer strive to understand the things that we do not know, how will we ever understand anything or anyone? Will we even want to understand in the future if we no longer seek to understand in the present? Will we become conditioned to enjoy being isolated and introverted? That seems sad and not human. This idea of understanding is much more complex than most realize. The issue is not just one of episteme but one of humanity, at least to me it is. Think long and hard about understanding because once you lose it recovering it will not be easy. Thanks for reading! Until next time …   

Grimm, Stephen, “Understanding”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2024/entries/understanding/&gt;.

Education, Painted and Soiled: Part V

by C. P. Lawrence

Education, Painted and Soiled:

Part V: True Education 

In 1916, John Dewey referred to education as “a social process—a process of living and not a preparation for future living.” While I think Dewey got many things about education wrong, I think he got this one right. Education is a social process. It is life and for a lifetime, but defining it seems to limit it. Definitions are ends for the means they serve. Education, for me, cannot be put into a box, nor should it be, which suggests that I am engaged in a fool’s errand. Let’s find out. 

Aristotle implied that education was not formal instruction nor was it just knowledge; it was much more, but what was it? For Aristotle, it involved developing both intellectual and moral virtues through practice and experience, and it was for a specific purpose, to produce flourishing human beings. This idea of human flourishing was, for Aristotle, the ultimate telos, i.e., the end goal, for all human beings, but this telos implies something else about education.

In this post, I will look at education from one last angle with the hope that I see something that makes sense to me. I want to look at education from the perspective of how we experience it. One author I recently read referenced Erich Fromm and his distinction between having and being. This is as good of a lens as any other to use. Fromm defines “having” and “being” as modes of existence and as different ways of understanding ourselves, the world in which we live and those living in this world with us.

According to Fromm, “having” is concerned with ownership and possession with a focus on controlling; “being,” on the other hand, is rooted in love and concern with a focus on shared experience and productive activity. Being engages the world while getting seeks to possess and control the world. Fromm saw these as two modes of human existence: the mode of having and the mode of being. The mode of having perceives everything as a potential possession while the mode of being perceives self as the carrier of certain properties and abilities.

Fromm thought “having” emphasized a duality between the owner and the thing owned. It was a view of the world with self at the center and all other things arranged in a circle around self. They are distinct from self and their relationship to self is only through their ownership by self. Being is about those qualities that merge with our existence … skills that belong to us that we can exercise, but these skills cannot be taken from us. They are part of us. They are ours. What Fromm proposed was that we have a choice on how to live. Do we live lives having or being? Fromm emphasized that there was a difference between a society set to live for people or for things. Where did that difference take root? I think you know the answer. 

Looking at education through the ideas of “having” and “being” clarify some things for me. In one sense, education can be something possessed as in, “I have a degree.” In this sense, education is one of those things to be possessed by self. It is part of the circle of stuff surrounding self, but then in another sense education can become part of us in the sense of “being” educated. If education is merely a paper on a wall, then, yes, there is a chance that I could lose that piece of paper, but if I am educated and continue to be educated then I lose nothing and gain everything. 

This approach forces me to confront my pursuit of education. I have been looking at education as something to define, but I have learned that such an approach is misaligned and the pursuit untenable. Education is not a thing to possess but instead it is a part of being, of who we are, or at least it should be. If education is as Dewey says—a social process—then we must treat it as a social process. Education, then, is like other aspects of our social world. It is akin to the interaction of family. It is friendships and courtships. It is an evening with friends, a day at work or even a family vacation. How do we define these things? The quick answer is we don’t because they are part of who we are as social beings. We learn these things over the course of a lifetime, starting as children. We are taught by our parents, progress into school and then into college. We eventually have our own children and start the cycle all over again. 

If education is “being” then it will define who we are more than we care to admit. It is not a neutral process but one that will impact us. In the same way that our parents defined who we are as children, education will have the same impact if we grant it the right. The push to educate your children at younger ages—there are many K4 programs out there—is a push to replace your impact on your own children with an educational one. This impact is masquerading as knowledge, either a core body of knowledge or a survey of chosen content. There is a hidden curriculum inside this content, and that hidden curriculum is this: every teacher and school teach from a perspective of the world which they will present to your children as true and right. Do you know what perspective of the world your school presents to your children as true and right? Many schools will claim that their focus is only on knowledge and content. Well, that is a perspective of the world, is it not? Shouldn’t you be the one who defines what is right and true for your four-year-old?  Do your beliefs and values align with the beliefs and values of the school your children attend? These are good questions to have on your mind when considering educational choices.

As I close this series on education, let me sum up what I have learned. First, education is not just content. It is so much more and no matter how hard we try to make it just about content, it will never be just about content. Two, education is not one dimensional. It is multi-dimensional, and it is always social. Aristotle presented the idea that education is about the posture of wisdom, heath and morality and a lifetime of movement, and there are implications if he is even a little right. Third, the foundation of education is morality whether one cares to admit that or not. Fourth, education will change culture. If we do not understand this aspect of education, then we are doomed to be overrun by those who do. To change culture, you must gain control of the schools. History tells us that there are many who have understood this and used this understanding to their benefit. Fifth, with great wisdom comes great responsibility. One does not gain education for only knowledge’s sake. Education provides power. Finally, education is a social process. It is akin to life and something we should engage for our entire lives in a manner akin to friendships, marriages and families. We work at these over the course of our lifetimes. We should do the same in our educational interactions. 

There is much more to address inside this topic of education, but for me, this concludes this series on education. Remember, thinking matters and so does education. Until next time …   

Education, Painted and Soiled: Part IV

by C. P. Lawrence

Education: Painted and Soiled

Part IV: More of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics  

A clearer picture of education is beginning to emerge. One that is more removed from current views, which is not really a surprise. As I dig a little deeper into Aristotle’s views, I must confess that I have not been Aristotelian for much of my life, but in the later years, I have seen the errors of my ways and come to him. It is projects like these that add to my appreciation of him and his work. 

I begin this section with a quote. Aristotle, in his Metaphysics, wrote, “It is through wonder that men now begin and originally began to philophise … he who wonders and is perplexed is ignorant; but, to escape ignorance [that] men studied philosophy.” The word “escape,” in this instance, is an infinitive which binds itself to ignorance. Ignorance, in this quote, is presented as that which is common, normal, pedestrian and functions more as a trap. The takeaway is that ignorance, to Aristotle, required escape; without escape, every human being was vulnerability to its enticement. Wonder, however, was a door away from ignorance and to philosophy, but be warned, Aristotle understood that wonder would perplex us, especially without philosophy (education). It would become ignorance which would be there waiting to ensnare us if education were not our guide; it would always be waiting for us, to settle, to take the easy way out, to be stagnate—it would always be there to accommodate us if we ever left education. Nothing much has changed.  

Aristotle believed that philosophy (education) was the love and pursuit of wisdom, which destroyed ignorance which he saw as temptation in the forms of apathy and sedentary. It was philosophy (education) that was different, but it required pursuit which was proactive action on the part of the human being. It suggested that the nature of education was fluid and active and not stagnate and sedentary. It would have to be pursued and it would demand our work and commitment. Wonder was the key to all of this; it would draw us deeper into the process. It would be there when we were weary or tired. Wonder was always the beginning, suggesting something important. Wonder was the antithesis of ignorance. It was protection and philosophy’s beginning but never its end. We wonder and risk ignorance the moment we stop. Wonder is also education in every sense of the word. It is wonder that prompts us to know. It is wonder that keeps us knowing and learning. Aristotle considered wonder necessary for both the learner and the teacher.

Aristotle saw the process of instruction as rooted in thinking and learning. It was a series of steps that must be taken by both the instructor and the learner with wonder as the first step in each series. To begin instruction, wonder must be present. It was necessary and if not present, the teacher was to create it for the learner must enter the learning process with curiosity (or wonder). But both the teacher and the learner were responsible for the own posture, and part of their postures was always to be wonder. Both were to enter the encounter curious as to what awaited them. They were to be eager in anticipation of the things they would learn. They were also to understand that they needed each other, and that education could not happen in isolation. It isolation it would always be limited.   

Aristotle’s second step, “individualized” instruction, rested in his belief that each student harbored unique talents, interests and preferences, which demanded a personalized approach to learning. For education to take place, the teacher had to know the learner, but the learner had to know the teacher and had to want to know the teacher. He posited that curiosity, critical thinking and individual inquiry in a student must all be reinforced through the personal guidance and support of the teacher. The role of the teacher was crucial to the success of the student, but the teacher’s role was tied to the learner’s attitude and posture. If the learner did not enter the interaction curious, ready to learn and seeking to know the teacher then the teacher’s role was limited. Education was threatened and ignorance was possible.  

His third step is more well known, The Socratic Method. Aristotle borrowed this concept from Plato and expanded on it. It is a cooperative form of dialogue based on thought-provoking questions and guided reflection thought to produce meaningful learning outcomes. Aristotle encouraged open dialogue between students and teachers for purposes of collaboration and discovery, but they were not to be equal participants. They must respect each other and their respective roles. It was up to the teacher to walk the learner through a process rooted in rigorous debate, which exposed erroneous reasoning leading to deeper understanding. The process was continuous and balanced, and it required both the learner and the teacher to embrace it and respect it.   

The fourth step was theory and practice. For Aristotle, the two came together as one. As I have referenced, he believed that for learning to happen theoretical knowledge and practical application must interact. He saw understanding as requiring both. He wrote, “For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them, e.g. men become builders by building and lyre-players by playing the lyre.” Aristotle often encouraged his students to apply theoretical concepts to practical problems because he believed, in doing so, his students would develop practical wisdom, improve critical thinking and become better problem solvers. For Aristotle, doing was as important as listening and studying. Process was important and could only be learned by doing repeatedly.   

Aristotle believed in many formats and methods. His lectures were thought to be littered with quotations, references, examples and images as he acknowledged the power of enhancing understanding through additional means. His goal was always to engage his students in the best possible ways, and he was always seeking new modes of engagement. As Aristotle taught his students, he understood that learning extended into the cultivation of virtue and morality in students. He sought to nurture individual virtues through his teaching. He believed that to live a fulfilled life we must be morally upright and virtuous. We must put these virtues into practice, or we could not be considered educated. He wrote, “These virtues are formed in many by his doing the actions … The good of man is a working of the soul in the way of excellence in a complete life.”

Aristotle was always faithful to what he called “the mean.” The mean was a balanced approach to life. It was not being over strenuous or excessive nor overly simplistic, superficial or sedentary. His answer was living a life of “harmonious balance,” which he saw as wedded to learning. The Mean or, as it has also been called, the Golden Mean, is moral behavior between two extremes: excess and deficiency. As people, he thought the proper way to live was to find a moderate position between two extremes and live that position to the best of our ability. Aristotle saw right living as living morally upright, which was to live a life faithful to the mean. 

According to Aristotle, education was that which equipped human beings to live such morally upright faithful lives. Education, to provide the means to live such a life, had to be active, moving and an active pursuit. It was not easy, not stagnate and not reactive but it was intentional. It was a process that rested with the learner and the teacher, and both must enter the interaction willing, fully committed and exerting ample effort or very little learning would take place. Virtue, morality, personal responsibility … all of these were important parts of education to Aristotle and marks of an educated life.

I have found that this idea of education is not simple. It is more complex than imagined but it is well worth my efforts and time. Until next time … 

Education, Painted and Soiled: Part III

by C. P. Lawrence

A Portrait of Aristotle

Part III: Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics  

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle presented four principles that I believe clarify his thoughts on education and provide more information in my quest to discover what education truly is. It was Aristotle’s belief that through these four principles human beings think and learn and would think and learn “all the more.” A picture of what education is supposed to be is beginning to form. Let’s get started. 

The first principle he called Anamnesis, which loosely translated means reminiscence or recollection. In the Greek, it is literally “a calling to mind.” As a concept, it suggested that we acquire knowledge externally, but we also have it inherently within us. Both were important and both were meant to interact with each other. Therefore, processes of introspection and reflection were considered important as both were manifestations of this interaction. These processes today are considered higher ordered thinking, but to Aristotle, they were foundational and necessary to all learning. Anamnesis, for Aristotle, was many things but it was primarily for the sake of remembering; he also thought it had secondary uses, as also that which facilitated, perceived, imagined, thought and understood. The proper aim of Anamnesis was the establishment of a truthful relationship between the representation (present) and the represented (past) through the interaction of the external and the internal leading to “the” truth. 

The second principle was termed Experience, which was thought, by Aristotle, to be required for understanding. A person with experience was one who had acquired external knowledge through interaction over time with one’s environment. It was one who engaged in the education for life. Experience was also that which developed coping skills, an appropriate attitude and a sense of the situation. Experience, to Aristotle, was not a knowledge of universals that could be memorized and applied but instead it was a knowledge of particulars, specifics, much like theories or axioms, regarding the way the world work. Aristotle saw culture and the environment through a lens of particulars and not universals, which speaks to his views on both. Experience, for Aristotle, took the form of the recognitional and the practical. It was not one over the other; it was both. He saw experience as compatible with general facts and was clear; understanding cannot be obtained through reason (inherent) alone; it required more. This idea of experience was not limited to the cognitive (inherent); it also required the engagement of one’s entire being (external), and the interaction of the two. 

The third principle was habituation (ethos). This is an important principle as it reflects Aristotle’s belief that we are what we repeatedly do. Aristotle believed that learning, like life, was a process that was active and moving. He argued that virtuous behavior—he saw life as needing to be lived in virtuous ways— was not just something learned, a good idea or even an intellectual pursuit; it was living through consistent practice, moral training and learning, which he thought required intentionality. We live according to what we believe, and we tend to act according to those beliefs with intent. There is personal responsibility applied to each of us and it flows out of our intent. This idea of intentionality was prominent in Aristotle’s thoughts on education and in his other areas of study as well. Believing alone was not sufficient; reactions and feelings were not sufficient. According to Aristotle, we must be actively engaged with and ultimately embody the values we believe. We must live them and be them or they do not exist in us and are not us. They instead become items we carry like luggage and apply situationally. Values alone without consistent application were more emotion than education, more ideas than virtues. To be educated, Aristotle believed one must live that which they believed, which he saw as living virtuously. The implication was that if we did not live the values we believed, then we did not really believe them or worse, they were not worthy of emulation. Living a life without virtues was living uneducated, less civilized and more barbaric.  

The fourth and final principle was practical wisdom. Aristotle believed that sound judgment and ethical decision making are the products of a synthesis of theoretical knowledge and real-world application. Practical wisdom was the manifestation of being an educated being. This was a blend of the cognitive (inherent) and the physical (external) coming together in the form of experience, which Aristotle saw as habitation manifesting as deliberation. This was education to him. Deliberation is long, conscious and careful consideration; it is applying those principles that you believe are true and right, that you have become convinced over time through scrutiny and analysis are true and right. Practical wisdom requires deliberation to discover the best course of action for a given situation. It is not a reaction or a quick decision. Deliberation was the result of the first three prior principles applied in full. To deliberate, Aristotle believed, was to function as an educated person.   

As I examine Aristotle’s ideas on education I see a balance between two conflicting concepts: theory and practice. Aristotle believed that true education required engagement with knowledge inherent (internal and a priori) and knowledge external (experience) to become wise, but dwelling only in one area or the other was not wisdom to Aristotle. Wisdom was a balance between the two; knowing something was not the same as living the something that you know. We find these same beliefs present in his ideas on pedagogy. He believed teaching required personalized instruction, active engagement, and the cultivation of wisdom; all focused on the learner and not the teacher and yet, he considered the teacher vital to the learning process. 

To many of us, these concepts are strange. Our perception of education is as a door. Education is the key that unlocks that door and on the other side of that door is a wonderful world of opportunities that await us. But that is not the picture that Aristotle paints. Education for him, was much different. It seemed more like maturity or growth, more a norm than a privilege. It seemed to be something common and necessary to human beings much like food and water. It was individual but for the sake of community. It was almost as if community would not happen without it. There is more to explore and discover as this quest for the origins of education continues. Until next time …   

Education, Painted and Soiled: Part II

by C. P. Lawrence

Raphael’s The School of Athens featuring Aristotle and Plato and many others!

Education: Painted and Soiled

Part II: Aristotle  

That nagging question has not gone anywhere. Back peddling to the 16th century helped but not nearly enough. If going back the 16th century helped, then it can’t hurt to go beyond the 16th century, to Aristotle and his views on education. Aristotle lived in the 4th century BC; he was born in Athens in 382 BC and lived until around 322 BC. He studied and wrote on many topics, education being one of those. 

The first Aristotelian idea I bumped into related to education was the idea of hexis, which is “a readiness to sense and to know.” This was a posture of sorts referred to as an “active condition” of a human being. Aristotle saw this condition as acquired and not innate, which is a statement about his thoughts on education. Aristotle borrowed this term from multiple sources, the Greeks and Plato to name two. The importance of hexis was its emphasis on habitation. Aristotle believed that one’s virtues were one’s habits and living a good life depending on living a life of virtuous habits. The adage, you are what you do most, comes from Aristotle’s thoughts on habits.  

For Aristotle, hexis was a constant disposition composed of character, heath and wisdom. It was a blend of personal responsibility, cognitive development and the environment, i.e., the educational process. It was a “habitual state of having” and was something uniquely human. According to Aristotle, it was this “active condition,” this continuous “having (or wanting),” that positioned human beings to live in wise ways with other human beings. This wise way or posture was perceived as education and as communal. The theme of unity and community, found here, is also found in the Latin and in other ancient ideas of education. There was an connotation; it was not as clear, but it was there. It was this idea that education cannot be education in isolation or in selfishness.

Aristotle referenced another important concept in his writings on education, a “guiding eidos,” referring to it as a leading idea. Eidos was the Greek word for “form,” and Aristotle used it to describe the essence of things. Aristotle believed that all physical objects are made of both eidos (form) and hule¢ (matter), two contrasting notions that he saw as necessary in the making of things. This eidos, for Aristotle, prescribed the nature of a product; he used it to describe his thoughts on education, which reveals some of his beliefs and thoughts on education. This “eidos” was a state of being, an attitude, a disposition when referenced regarding human beings … It was a suggestion that human beings live to be happy and to flourish and that both could only be reached together. Aristotle suggested that one of the best ways for them to come together appropriately was inside the process of education. 

As I explored more of Aristotle’s ideas on education, I continued to bump into many subtle references to community. Community, for me, cannot be built without a concern for others, but inside this concern must be something else: a willingness to sacrifice self for the sake others. It was living away from self and towards others. Aristotle’s philosophical theory, virtue ethics, emphasized the development of moral character, i.e., virtues, for this reason. This was living ethically for others; it was living away from self and towards others. Aristotle encourage people to live virtuous lives of courage, justice, liberality, patience and truthfulness. This was a virtuous life, in some respects, for Aristotle. It was as if he saw selfishness and the lack of virtue as signs of being uneducated.

This “guiding eidos” that he referenced was a unique disposition he used in discussions associated with education; Aristotle used the term, halting in connection with it, implying that it was a characteristic of the educated. Aristotle used the term, Halting, to reference movement. He saw this movement, this halting, as a process that “had already begun and would continue” into the future. By connecting this halting to education, he was implying that education “moved” in a similar manner. It was, as processes go, movement which had already begun and would continue into the future. There were no suggestions that it would slow or even end. It was a lifelong process akin to life.

All of this, according to Aristotle, ultimately led to praxis, which was “informed committed action.” This was not reaction, selfishness nor individual pragmatism; it was educated intentional intimate action for the sake of others and eventually for the greater good. For Aristotle, praxis was one of the three basic human activities, which were praxis (action), theoria (theory), and poiesis (making). Praxis was considered practical, thoughtful activity that was to be goal-directed and voluntary, and it demonstrated human freedom. Theoriawas theoretical activity with a single purpose focused on discovering truth. And poeisis was making or productive action, and it created something new. Aristotle believed that praxis must be guided by a moral disposition for one to act in righteous ways. Why? Aristotle believed that there could be good praxis (eupraxia) and bad praxis (dyspraxia), which makes sense considering he believed that hexis and most of education was acquired and not innate. 

The modern idea of education is nowhere to be found in the etymology of the word, in the Latin or in Aristotle’s thoughts on education. Why is that? Do we have it wrong? As I referenced earlier, I believe education has been painted and soiled to the point that it is not even education anymore. It is something else. I believe this “something else” is being presented as education, whether intentional or not, and is now considered by most of us to be education. When our children walk into their schools, they assume—and we do to— that they are receiving an education, but what if they are not? They are receiving something. Are you confident that you know what it is?

There is an infamous quote attributed to Aristotle regarding education, “Education is the process of training man to fulfil his aim by exercising all the faculties to the fullest extent as a member of society.” In this quote, Aristotle’s goal of education is not just focused on man, but that man would become the best member of society that he could possibly be. This is a focus on mankind, not on self, for the sake of community. It was a thought that every man and woman would be a contributing member of society for the betterment of self and community. How could this be done? Aristotle believed that education was one of the chief manners of accomplishing this goal. Education, for him, was not to for vocation nor for self; it was for personal betterment for the purpose of communal betterment; they went together. They needed each other, but there was a danger if we only focused on ourselves, which was why he promoted a virtuous life and recognized the need for a virtuous education. 

We are just scratching the surface. There is so much more and that is if we stay with Aristotle. In my next post I explore his Nicomachean Ethics, which is where he presented more thoughts on education. Until then … 

Education, Painted and Soiled: Part I

by C. P. Lawrence

Part I: Semantics  

I have had this question about education for some time. I thought it was a simple one, but I soon found that it was not. My problem—I wanted a simple answer. But there doesn’t appear to be one. Defining education is hard. I believe it is now harder than it ever has been. Why? Well, first, I believe modern education is a painted and soiled version of itself and second, I believe it has strayed so far from its true self that most of us have no idea what it is anymore. I see modern education buried under mounds of fads and trends. I have no real rational reason to make such a statement, but, just the same, the thought will not leave me.   

The idea of education fascinates me. I still marvel at the process and recall with fondness my own educational experiences. I loved all my schooling and I have had a lot; some might say too much. I loved the small town two-room schoolhouse, my grammar and middle school experiences. I loved being bused to the large city high school, my high school experience, and of course, I loved my college experiences: who wouldn’t love those. The idea of high school has always fascinated me. Students, teachers, lockers, sports teams, class changes, hallways … the whole thing was an amazing experience for me. I saw it as its own little eco-system of which I was a part. I thought the process was as close to perfection as one could get. Then, I messed it all up and became a teacher. I went from the front of the curtain to the back of it and have never been the same. What I found behind the curtain smashed my rose-colored glasses into a thousand tiny pieces.

From my very first day as a teacher, I saw teaching as a craft and a practice; it was something to be honored and respected. I walked into that first class ready to change the world. I still remember my classroom: lots of space, large windows and a big teacher desk in the corner overlooking the student desks that sat under its shadow. That first day I learned a lot and every day after that one. I wanted to be better, and I wanted better for my students, so I read and studied. I talked to my fellow teachers. I talked with my administration. I observed those with more experience. I worked in different schools and in different roles and kept learning. As the years went by, things, both good and bad, happened to me. I woke up one morning and I realized something—this thing I was doing was not really education. It was something else.

What is this thing that I have dedicated the better part of my life to? If it’s not education, what is it? I can’t condemn it based on feelings, can I? That is not very educated of me, is it? Yet, that is what I am doing; I am acting on this sense that what I was doing was not really education but something else. It was, for me, two steps forward and two steps back. It was walking knee-deep in the mud and sense of lostness. No one cares about my opinion. No one even knows who I am. Why should I care? Well, I do. It matters to me. Should it matter to you? That is up to you, but you have experienced education in some of the same ways that I have. It has impacted who you are.  

The adage I am using, painted and soiled, is a product of my time in education and the things I have seen over the years. I believe some of what has been piled on top of education over the years has been intentional (painted) and some of it organic (soiled). Some of it was good, but a lot of it was bad. What proof do I have to make such statements? Well, none; it is only speculation right now, but I want to find out more and that means something, even if it means something only to me. Someone once told me if you want to discover hard truth, you must be willing to go backwards. Sometimes going backwards is difficult, but speculation will reign if you never go backwards. When you do stop, turn around and go backwards, you will be on a different path. That is a start. It is also a form of freedom. The process of seeking, even if you never find anything, is freedom and worth every minute you spend on it, at least it is for me. So, let’s stop, turn around and begin the back peddling by exploring education’s etymology.   

I found that this strange wonderful English word “education” is derived from two Latin words dating back to the middle of the 16th century, which is my first step backwards. The first of the two Latin words is educo, which is also found in the forms of educare, educavi and educatum. It is generally defined as “to bring up,” “to rear,” “to guide,” and “to direct.” These imply a process akin to the rearing of children either by a family or in a community. There are suggestions that this educo, as an action, has more in common with raising children than teaching children, which intimates that education, in the past, was broader and included values, beliefs and morality as part of its composite. This may surprise us, but it should not. This process was not confined to children; it was extended to adolescents and adults, especially when seeking and needing guidance, which, again, suggests something beyond subjects.

There is another idea that this Latin word conveys. While it does contrasts ideas of schooling, it also complements processes of schooling. As an idea, it is more analogous to a generation-to-generation cultural transfer of information akin to that which would be found in secluded civilizations where elders transfer their history to the next generation of leaders. This transfer is not of subjects but of beliefs, values and even traditions. It conveys a view of the world as true and right. This word, “educo,” implies an extension of learning into the broader culture and community. The use of “educo” does intimate a school setting, but, as I referenced earlier, it also intimates something beyond that setting. Its existence depends on its balanced relationship with all other learning, which is not limited to formal instruction. The implication is that learning is communal and cultural. 

There is a second Latin word found in the English word of education, and that word is educere, which is the more common of the two. It is also found in the forms educo, educere, eduxi and eductum. It is defined in the following ways: “to draw out,” “to lead out,” “to raise up,” “to bring up” and “to rear a child.” From this word, we draw closer to current semantics associated with education; one author referenced that educere presented education as “a slow and skillful process of extracting the latent potentialities of comprehension and dedication, in contradistinction with indoctrination,” which is akin to a process of teaching students a core body of knowledge. Sound familiar? This word does push back on the idea of education as indoctrination, instead, embracing the educational ideal of freedom of selection. But there is a difference. Freedom, in educere, is presented as part of the process of education; whereas today, freedom is presented and perceived as a product of education. 

When both Latin words come together to form the word, education, ideas of nourishing or rearing are more pronounced than ideas of teaching, but both are there. There is the presence of instruction, but it is systemic to the process and coupled with the idea of rearing or raising. Several authors referenced that the English word education could refer to both the process of training and the product or results of training, which has more to do with 16th century semantics than 21st century ones. The Latin also suggests that this idea of education is less formal instruction, more rearing and raising and more intimate. It is something beyond a teacher, a classroom or even subjects; it is something more relational and more familial. This paints a different picture than the education we have today, and yet, it is still not clear to me.

The etymology does go back to the 1500s and the Latin word educationem, which was defined as “upbringing or training.” It was this word that was the source of the Middle French word for education that gave rise to our English word, which entered the English language around 1530. This pulls us closer to the origins of education, but the picture is still murky. We need to go back farther, back to the Greeks, to Aristotle, and to 300 BC. Will that be far enough back? Only time will tell. Until next time …