aristotle

Zetetic Philosophy: The Pursuit of Understanding

by C. P. Lawrence

Zetetic Philosophy: The Pursuit of Understanding

I recently read an article about the pursuit of understanding related to Zetetic Philosophy. The term “zetetic” is not a term we often hear or even use, and yet it is an important one. The term is derived from the Greek word “zeteo,” which means “to search or to examine.” Zetetic Philosophy emphasizes the importance of questions and investigation over relying on preconceived notions, facts and assumptions. This sounds familiar but what many do not realize is that most philosophy today begins at a culturally- accepted position, which is preconceived. The article suggested that we should view Socrates as a Zetetic Philosopher due in part to his detailed explanation in the Republic of the ideal type of formal education. This intrigued me, but education is not the reason I read this article; understanding is. 

If you read the Republic (and I recommend that you do), you will encounter the philosopher-kings, Socrates ideal rulers. They are noble and intelligent known by their virtues who think through a certain praxis, thus the moniker philosopher-king. Socrates referred to their thinking process as the dialectic and presented it as a positive form of dialogue that incorporated “arguments in order to achieve a sure and true understanding of reality (Being).” The dialectic was a form Socrates used to test how and why things are the way they are. For Socrates, the dialectic was a method to achieve knowledge, of what he called the “Good-in-itself,” by distinguishing “the good” from everything else. Many see the dialectic as the Socratic Method. They are not one and the same but two different methods. 

The Socratic Method differed from the dialectic, in part, due to the “method of questioning,” which expressed more ignorance than understanding, which seems odd and counter intuitive. Both processed through the antithesis to confirm what is true, but only the Socratic Method embraced uncertainty as a healthy part of the process. In the Socratic Method, the teacher must hold knowledge—know something and give account of that something known—to impart knowledge or lead others in obtaining knowledge. The teacher must master both the knowledge and the method of distribution of the knowledge to move past the stage of personal ignorance to lead others to understanding. This is not a weakness of the Socratic Method but a strength. Read any of Plato’s dialogues, you will find that Socrates was this type of teacher. 

The author suggested that Socrates, as a teacher, had the following characteristics as a teacher: the desired results were met, he had the answers he sought from his students, his method unfolds in a “teleological” manner and his form of knowledge is different than the knowledge associated with the virtues he conceived. This is in stark contrast to Socrates numerous claims of ignorance, but this idea of ignorance is important or else he would not keep using it. In the Republic, Socrates denied several times that he was in possession of a certain kind of knowledge. He stated several times that he knew nothing. What is happening here? Is ignorance an important part of knowing? 

Several authors have pointed out that Socrates sought to be a co-participant in the learning process with his students, even abjuring the moniker of “teacher” as too formal to achieve equal status with his students. Was ignorance a means of this equal status? This is, in some sense, Socrates maintaining a posture of seeking and yearning for wisdom in the same manner as his students. The author implored us not to fall for Socrates trying to present himself as a radical nihilist skeptic but to look deeper, deeper into this idea of understanding as it relates to ignorance. Seeing Socrates as a zetetic philosopher is “antithetic to the philosophical ideal of the philosopher-kings of the Republic who were to lead their city-state towards that which is good and true,” or at least that was their goal?

These philosopher-kings are referred to as echonic philosophers (traditional), and Socrates never claims to be their equal. This idea of echonic philosophy, which these kings are thought to possess, is found in Book VII of the Republic and represents authenticity and proper education which was supposed to provide the possessor of both an ability to grasp what it takes to rule. Yet, the author references Socrates as a zetetic philosopher, which is a philosopher who embraces a a philosophy that is ongoing, dynamic and critical in analysis. It is one with no real answers and instead seeks to continue to inquire. Its understanding is not found in Plato’s forms but grounded in humanity and its limits and finitude. This is an important point regarding the pursuit of understanding. It is a never-ending process that is always fluid, ongoing and never ending. 

The author implies that we must learn from Socrates that real education is based on zetetic philosophy, as this is, according to Plato, a “turning around of the soul” back to itself in an enlightened state. This suggests something more about education and about understanding, especially if we look at the three moments referenced in the zetetic journey found in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. First, there is liberation from bonds, then there is ascent upward to the light and finally there is the return to the cave. These three moments come together to fully express enlightenment or education and understanding. This idea of zetetic philosophy was thought to be that which avoided expecting absolute, irrefutable instances of truth, as if they did not exist. 

The implication is that we must recognize our ignorance and our limitations as human beings first. This is where the pursuit of understanding begins. It does not begin within the knowledge itself, but within us, recognizing first our humanness and acknowledging second our limitations. Therefore, all pursuits of understanding, as hard as this may be to understand, seem to begin within us and not within the knowledge that we seek to understand. Is this the message of Socrates? Does this make sense? I am not sure, but it does force me to do one thing … think and that is always a good thing. Until next time …   

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 … 

Do We Still Have Common Sense?

by C. P. Lawrence
Common Sense sign card

The other day, in the middle of a conversation, the idea of common sense was presented as something all but gone in our culture. The subject came and went too quickly. It was only after, upon reflection of the conversation, that it came to my mind, and I couldn’t dismiss it. It stayed with me, prompting me to do a little digging as to its origins and to its current reality.

Let’s establish, first, that common sense is not a liberal or a conservative mindset. It is not a particular worldview or political position. I think many of us look at the absence of common sense as positional; to have it one must hold a certain position, usually a position that aligns with our position. That is not common sense.  

The origin of the phrase is found with a school of philosophy, which is said to hold the notion that we should begin our thinking with the fixed beliefs of mankind and move on from there. This phrase or notion, whatever you want to call it, was first penned by Aristotle who believed that all living beings have nourishing souls, but it was only human beings who possessed a rational soul. He believed it was only this rational soul that perceived. Aristotle proposed that every act of perception involved a modification of one of the five senses that then interacted with one’s entire being, when engaged with one of the fixed beliefs associated with all human beings.

Aristotle saw one’s perception as provinces of sensation and believed that human beings perceive by means of difference between the polar extremes contained within each sense. For example, he saw these provinces of sensation as a “kind of mean” between two extremes as in the difference between soft and loud in sound or bitter and sweet in taste. His inference was that human beings perceive by means of difference, but he believed that one sense cannot perceive itself. According to a host of theorists, Aristotle speculated that there must be an additional sense or a “common sense” that coordinated the other senses. He suggested that this “common sense” instituted a perception that is common to all the other senses yet one condensable to none of them. 

Most theorists agree that this common sense, referenced by Aristotle, was not a sixth sense or an additional sense; instead, it was more a sense of difference or a unity of the senses that manifests together when considering something of significance, a fixed belief, if you will, engaging all five senses, which in turn act collectively on one’s being. 

Mention common sense today and most default to the ideas of practical judgement and social awareness as both relate to an individual being living in a world with all beings, but there is a deeper implication … the one with which we started. Do most still have common sense? Or is there still a need for common sense? Both questions have implications socially and culturally. 

First, are there any commonly accepted fixed beliefs to which almost everyone, even in their differences, agree or acknowledge? It is thought that agreement or acknowledgement of these fixed beliefs manifest common sense but if there are a dwindling number of fixed beliefs … what happens to common sense? I am proposing that culturally there is indeed a diminishing number of commonly accepted fixed beliefs but that is due to all individual beliefs being given positions of acceptability. The question not yet answered is this one: does the acceptance of all individual beliefs still produce common sense in the same way a communal acceptance of a fixed belief did in the past?  

When was the last time you heard common sense referenced? I can’t say that I have heard the phrase in quite some time. As I look out at our world, I see an absence of common sense but does anyone else? Common sense seems, to me, to be an individual trait produced by communal membership. Does the absence of common sense signal an absence of community or an absence of something else? I am thinking of submission or empathy, two areas I see less of these days. 

The idea of common sense was the sense that kept you “in the middle of the road,” if you will, kept you connected with all others with your differences intact. It was this “common” amid all your differences that you shared with your fellow men and women in ways of connect-ability. It connected you with others and allowed you to keep your differences while connecting with others who were themselves different. It was “common sense” that tolerated individual differences for the sake of the collective whole. Over time, some individual differences became acceptable to our collective common sense, but what happens when all differences are given equal status of acceptability? Well, first, we lose the need for common sense, and second, I am not entirely sure, but my sense is that we lose something important … something communal … something distinctly human.    

I would love to hear your thoughts? Hit the comment section with them because thinking matters! 

The Changing Context of Wisdom

by C. P. Lawrence

Aristotle once said, “All men by nature desire to know,” which is a statement about being human. What he was saying is that we—human beings—have a built-in thirst to know … to gain knowledge. Is this still the case or was Aristotle mistaken?

To support his statement, Aristotle referenced our senses and our love for them. That has not gone away; I would actually propose that we are more in love with them now than we have ever been. We love to see, taste, hear and feel. We are sensual beings and even more so today. Our senses contribute to our thinking. We input information through our senses, but do we still use all of them?

Consider this: many of us use computers, laptops, iPads and cell phones to think. I, myself, now write on a laptop, which is a change from years ago when I was a pencil and paper thinker. I can’t do it anymore. I need to type on a computer to think. What does that do to the input of information? Well, it actually reduces the use of my senses down to two: sight and sound, with one (sound) delayed. What does this mean when it comes to wisdom?

Wisdom is many things; it is the use of one’s knowledge and experience to make good judgement. It is the ability to make good judgements. Wisdom, ultimately, is the ability to discern, which is a higher ordered form of thinking. What are we discerning when we discern? Well, we are discerning right from wrong, the good from the bad and the wise from the foolish. Can we do that with our senses only?

Can you see right and wrong? Can you hear it or feel it? How about taste it or smell it? Do you just know? Many of us would never admit to being able to do any of this and yet, we say all the time … I feel this is right or I feel that is the wrong thing to do. The fact is alone, your senses are not enough to determine anything. Aristotle thought senses would be dangerous if they became an end in themselves, but is that not where we are today? Do our senses drive us in all that we do? Where do they fit when it comes to experience? I think right now they trump experience, but is that a good thing?

Aristotle saw both experience and the senses as vital to wisdom, which is why he valued the artisan. He saw the artisan as knowing both the how (experience) and the way (sense). Wisdom is not just feeling; it is also not just factual. It is a blend of both, but both do not come together naturally; they need help. How do the senses become married to knowledge? The answer is through the spiritual. We are spiritual beings whether we believe in a Divine Being or in atheism.

Wisdom is a balanced blend of the senses and experience held together by the spiritual through values and beliefs, but I am proposing that wisdom’s context is changing. Why? Well, I believe the context of wisdom is affected by the predominant beliefs and values of the day, which have changed radically in the last ten years. In the past, those were some form of a Christian moral standard, but today, they are more existential, which affects the context of what is wise. What it means to be wise today has changed a lot. Wisdom is now associated with ideology, certain beliefs and certain values. We say we are more tolerate but we are less. We say we are more open but we are more closed. We have less freedom, less excellence, less leadership and way more excuses.

This all comes back to the context of what is wise, which is much different than it used to be and because it is different, who we are as human beings is different. Does it matter? I believe it does, but that is a discussion for another day. For now, thinking matters and today’s thinking involves wisdom. Think about your thoughts on wisdom … have they changed? If so, why? Love to engage with your comments. Until next time …