Some people tend to think of formal education as a proof of, or a proxy for, intelligence. This really begs the question: what is an education? Of course, people without schooling can also be thick-that is hardly in doubt and goes without saying; what one needs to be sceptical of is, I think, the notion that institutionalised education is necessarily the same thing as learning.
One can think of all sorts of counter examples : the Germans in the inter-war years, with all of their high culture, art and science, still descended into the most horrid form of madness imaginable. At the personal level, one is aware of people who at the surface level are tremendously clever, sharp as pins in their own field, but have little but a rudimentary knowledge of other subjects; more to the point, their understanding of life is severely limited. It is as if there has been a hypertrophy of the mind in the west. Formal intelligence is one thing, integral intelligence quite another. For who is to say that there isn't intelligence in humour, in understanding that there are ways to say things, times to be silent; that there isn't a sublime intelligence that is expressed in dance, music , art, in knowing what friendship and love are?
Rumi narrates the story...
A king sends his only son off to the best university in his kingdom. After many years of rigorous study the son returns, having acquired the highest degrees and having won all the highest accolades. The father is so proud of him that he wants to demonstrate to his court just how useful a good education is. Unbeknown to his son, the King puts his ring in his hand and clasps it shut so that no-one can see what is in it.
"Tell me son, what do you think is in my hand?"
The son thinks, contemplates for many minutes (for he has studied philosophy at the highest level).
"By the way in which your hand is positioned, and knowing human biology the way I do, I would say that it is round."
The court is startled into silence. "How clever!" and "How wise the King was to send him to that university!"
"What else?", asks the King.
"Well, the way the light is refracted I would say that my knowledge of physics leads me to the conclusion that it is hollow".
Again, there is amazement and wonderment all round.
"And?", says the King.
"I have studied the periodic table for many years and know the truth behind matter. I would say that what you have in your hand is also gold".
The court is stunned. Some fall to the floor. The priests and magicians are all silent.
"Now, wise son, do the formalities ..we now know it is gold, hollow, and round. Reveal to this backward court of mine what is in my hand ."
And with that the son says, "Is it your crown father?"
We may know the world in detail but miss the point, the essential...
There seems to me to be a terrible snobbery associated with higher education. Not only can a theoretical approach to all matters hinder a balanced approach to knowledge (Goethe: often rounded, never complete..broken circles), but it can also alienate one from other people and from life itself. It is not without good reason that Kennen has been completely displaced by Wiesen. It is as if one enters academia to escape the 'practical world' and the ongoing debates about which is more 'real' can never be resolved. All one can do is point out the irrevocable chasm between the two realms: word and deed have, indeed, been torn apart.
At another level, there is a strange fear that we cannot reduce everything to something we can 'know'. The 'totalising' aspect of the mind is, perhaps, the trap of traps...knowledge itself becomes an idol. Wisdom sets bounds to what I want to know (Nietzsche) . Levinas tells the story of Gagarin who, on reaching outer space, the limits of the known, says 'There is no God here'. Levinas' insightful remarks on this are: even at the boundaries man only encounters himself (and this echoes Heisenberg's startling prediction with regards science: there is a danger that man will encounter only the products of his own mind) . And Bertrand Russell could well advocate a 'useless knowledge', a way of understanding the world and life that isn't reduced to, and one that resists, utilitarian ends.
From that time forward [17th c.], the way was open for philosophy either to attain the rigour of the mathematician or the mathematical physicist, or to explain the appearance of rigour in these fields, rather than to help people attain peace of mind. Science, rather than living, became philosophy's subject, and epistemology its centre.
--Rorty.
Notes from Fran O'Rourke, Pseudo-Dinoysius and Aquinas:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
hello
I'm having some problem here sending a comment so you might have already got one similar -
I've never liked 'clever' people particularly, I think what I object to is the idea that one can think they know 'the rules of the game' and then start functioning like some bloody referee, basically telling everyone what is and isn't allowed - the Guardian blog last week ended virtually with a 'referee' telling what was and wasn't allowed in polite conversation. There is a real problem here - certainly most thinking goes on outside of what we consider to be the proper domains of conceptual thought. Certainly art, humour, sport even have contained great thinking -unfortunately Warne is a genius!
I think fascination and interest for me excuse many things, if you can maintain these then that is the path to a true education, that is in the maintenance of some kind of continuing belief in the world. I'm going to stop here to see if I can post this bloody thing successfully!
Citizen, a wonderful point about education and maintaining a "belief in the world". Reminds me of what Hannah Arendt once said about pleasure being, fundamentally, an openness to the world.
Yep, Warne, Muhammad Ali etc were geniuses. I wonder who you think the closest British genius is in this respect.
I understand your point about rules but I'm not sure I agree with you 100% . you're not making the case for a lack of any rules, are you?
anyway, thanks for your comments.
also in relation to the degradation of wisdom by a culture of knowledge expertise, I think in regard to what you say that we might even come to a point in the near future when we look back at the present state of affairs with some nostlagia. Wisdom seems to have long ago lost its allure while knowledge is itself being replaced by 'information' and the even more generic 'content'. A process driven by archival and library science methinks, the drive to continually upgrade into improved formats. The world and our beliefs about it seem to become irrelevent in some awfully final and irrevocable way. but no I think rules are good! thinking about it I suppose I just think an activity or whatever it may be should be its own best set of rules, the best examplar can be a rule. Its when rules develop some autonomy (though thinking about it, this seems the common sense meaning of the idea) that they become questionable. maybe they must be embodied in some way, I guess I'm against the dualism that rules can create.
but anyway British geniuses ?!
well if we are talking sport, in my life time of people who I have actually seen play I would suggest 'early' Botham, Botham in his pomp so to speak, before his performances started to become optional, and that only goes to show that generally the main candidates are a pretty flawed bunch. I guess George Best, but he is the classically flawed sporting hero. I never saw him play but I did see him drink, quite literally, his local in London was down the road from where I went to art college, you could turn up there any night of the week and see George chatting to all comers about football and his life, I thought he was pretty cool really.
Citizen, I think you've hit on a strange phenomenon. On the one hand there is, as you rightly say, an emphasis on information, 'breaking news', on debunking any previously held theory and yet, at the same time, how can expertise said to exist in such rapidly changing conditions? Perhaps Rieff was on to something when he coined the phrase 'negative theorists'.
Nostalgia: what is intersting-to me at least-is just how important this is. I wonder if 'retro' culture and the desire to store everything in libraries aren't somehow connected.
cricket: yes, Botham was immensely talented (though I still think, on balance, that Imran was the overall better all-round player)
Post a Comment