 You can’t read every book. You can’t retain everything you read. Given these facts what counts as being well-read? It’s an interesting question to consider in a world where more and more books are being published every year thus making the goal of keeping up with knowledge nearly impossible. Even if you choose to specialize in one discipline, being well-read in that discipline is extremely difficult. But, is there a way to attain a level of general knowledge that is both achievable and useful? And, what are the benefits of such knowledge?
In an effort to plan a homeschooling curriculum for my daughter I have been thinking quite a lot about such questions. While I have a lot of sympathy for the unschooling movement and interest-led learning I also think it is important to gain a broad exposure to many different subjects and have at least a passing familiarity with the broad concepts in basic academic subjects. One of the chief benefits of such broad exposure is the ability to make connections between subjects you do have an interest in and subjects you find less interesting. As T.S. Elliot once said “No one can become really educated without having pursued some study in which he took no interest. For it is part of education to interest ourselves in subjects for which we have no aptitude.” In my curriculum I have organized the various academic subjects into the following categories: Foundations: Education, Mathematics, Critical Thinking, Language, Life Skills Moral Philosophy: Economics, Ethics, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Religion Natural Philosophy: Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geography, Geology, Physics History: American History, World History, Ancient History, Greece and Rome, The Middle Ages, The Renaissance, Women in History, English History Humanities: Art, Literature, Music, Plays, Poetry One of my initial goals for this curriculum was to create a resource list including important books for each subject. To “complete” a course of study a student would need to read a certain minimum number of books in that subject. But, this leads us back to the original question: What does it mean to be well-read in a certain subject area? Can this be reduced to a specific number of books? I think you need to begin any course of study with the stipulation that learning everything about that subject might be a worthy aspiration but it is not a realistic goal. One also has to remember that learning about a subject involves more than simply reading a set of books on that subject. So, you have to have time for things other than reading. Let’s pick as an arbitrary number five books per subject. That comes to 150 books for the set of academic subjects I listed above. At the modest reading rate of 25 books per year that means becoming “well-read” in all of the subjects listed above would take 6 years. I think you could make an argument that a student who went through such a curriculum could not only pass any exam given for any of these subjects at a high school (and possibly college) level but would also be vastly better educated than the average (or even above average) high school graduate. A student who went through this curriculum would not know everything there is to know about each of these subjects but would know enough to see how they were connected and would know enough to be able to learn more about any given subject if they so desired. In other words, they would have a solid educational foundation.
0 Comments
This is a nearly impossible question to answer in advance. Many will argue that anything irrelevant to you is not worth learning. But, how can you know what is or will be relevant to you without first learning about it?
Of course, you can’t learn everything there is to know but it is also not a good idea to rule out learning anything without first investigating it. You never know what might be useful and if you’re interested in improving your creativity and critical thinking skills, the more you learn, the more you will improve these skills. Let’s consider, as an example of learning, creativity. What is creativity? Can it be learned? How do creative people think? These are some of the questions that Jonah Lehrer looks at in his book Imagine: How Creativity Works. One insight I think is particularly important and provides a useful argument for the importance of learning as much as you can even if it seems irrelevant to your area of study or your current job. Creativity requires the mixing of ideas and to do this, you need to be exposed to many different ideas from many different areas of knowledge. There are countless examples of this process that could illustrate the point. One of the most famous is the example of Steve Jobs being inspired by a course in calligraphy he took. This led to the development of the many different fonts in one of the first Apple computers. In his book The Mind and the Brain, Jeffrey Schwartz writes about using the insights of Austrian economics combined with Buddhism to help develop a treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder. In neither case would that knowledge seem to have been worth knowing. Not until an application presented itself. But, that application would not have presented itself if these subjects weren’t first learned. This is what Louis Pasteur meant when he said that “chance favors the prepared mind.” In Lehrer’s book, he describes a similar process of combining ideas. Dan Wieden, co-founder of the advertising agency Wieden+Kennedy came up with the “Just Do It” Nike slogan by thinking about a murderer named Gary Gilmore whose last words at his execution in 1977 were “Let’s do it.” He was originally prompted to think about Gilmore due to a discussion with one of his colleagues who happened to mention the writer Norman Mailer. As Wieden puts it “we were talking about Mailer, and I knew that he had written a book about Gary Gilmore. And that was it. That’s where the slogan came from. Just a little sentence from someone else. That’s all it takes.” The point is that’s all it takes if you have a sufficiently large store of ideas from which to draw and make connections. Where do these ideas come from? Well, one of the best ways to assemble this storehouse is to read widely, learn about different subjects, have a well-rounded general knowledge of the world, and remain curious. All of these are elements of a good education and are too often missing in what passes for education these days in most primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools. Much of education these days seems to be very focused on relevance. We are told that students want to learn what is relevant to them and will respond best when given relevant information. As educators, we are told that this is the reason why students do not read many books, certainly not the classics. They just aren’t relevant. But, what is the a priori relevance of calligraphy to developing a computer? What is the a priori relevance of Austrian economics to treatment for OCD? And, what is the a priori relevance of the murderer Gary Gilmore to coming up with an advertising slogan? Judged by our current standard none of these are relevant and would not merit knowing about. So, the question becomes: How much creativity are we depriving students of (and they are depriving themselves) by only focusing on the relevant? In a world where there is a premium on creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving don’t we need to be teaching more irrelevant information than ever before? So, don’t rule out anything as “not worth learning” until you’ve learned a little about it. And, even then you won’t be dismissing it as “not worth learning” but simply as not worth learning more about at this time. Who knows when that might change? 
Image by Myriams-Fotos from Pixabay
Here are some philosophically inspired resolutions for you to adopt in the new year: 1. Become a sage. Chuang Tzu once said, "The sage looks at the inevitable and decides that it is not inevitable. The common man looks at what is not inevitable and decides that it is inevitable." Recognize that what appears to be inevitable is not and take one step to become a sage. 2. Improve the quality of your thoughts. Marcus Aurelius recognized that "The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts." So, resolve to take this step towards becoming happier in your life. 3. Find time to sit still. Blaise Pascal once said, "Most of the evils of life arise from man's being unable to sit still in a room." Take some time to be still, meditate, or just relax with no distractions. It's good for the soul. 4. Take some risks. Paul Tillich once said, "He who risks and fails can be forgiven. He who never risks and never fails is a failure in his whole being." Don't be a failure, try something new! 5. Examine your beliefs. David Hume pointed out that "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." Take some time to examine your beliefs and the evidence for them. 6. Spend some time with good friends. Epicurus recognized that "Of all the means which are procured by wisdom to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is the acquisition of friends." Re-connect with friends. 7. Be mindful. The poet Tagore observed, "The greed for fruit misses the flower." Remember to stop and smell the flowers on your journey. 8. Be satisfied with what you have. Epicurus once remarked that "Nothing satisfies a man who is not satisfied with a little." Focus on and appreciate what you have. 9. Identify your purpose. As Nietzsche once said "He who has a why to live for can bear with almost anyhow." be sure you are clear about the meaning and purpose of your life and strive to live accordingly. 10. Be a prepared observer. Louis Pasteur once remarked that "chance favors the prepared observer. Be ready to take advantage of new opportunities that arise this year.
This year I achieved two important milestones for myself. The first involves my reading hobby. I have been keeping track of the books I read each year since high school and have been tracking these digitally for many years now on Goodreads.
In September of 2010 I finished my 1,000th book. This year I completed my 2,000th!
My second milestone involves my music. I released my first album titled Waiting for the Slipstream in 1997. This year marks the 25th anniversary of that release. As a tribute I released a "best of" album titled Twenty Five.
So, it's been a good year. Here's to a great 2023 with more books read and more music to be released!
This problem has probably been around ever since people began thinking of ethics but David Hume formulated it in concrete terms in the 18th century. Basically the problem is that you cannot deduce from a set of facts what ought to be. For example, murders occur in this country. That's a fact. But, can we deduce from that fact that murders ought to occur? No. What's especially troubling is that we also cannot deduce that murders ought not to occur. That's the problem.
To illustrate consider this case. You are a student in a writing course and have an assignment to write a 10 page paper. You know the following facts: the professor has a strong policy against plagiarism and being caught with a plagiarized paper means automatic failure of the course, studies show that at least 75% of students claim to cheat in one form or another during their college career, papers are easily available for purchase online that fit your assigned topic, you have a friend who has told you that you can use his paper from last semester. So, you have a decision to make! You can either decide what must be done and provide a good justification for this decision or ask for more facts first. But, you can only appeal to the facts to make your decision. Looked at in this narrow fashion it seems that the is-ought problem is intractable and that we cannot make any moral judgments. But, there is a way out. If you stop and think about it, there must be since we make moral judgments all of the time. While some of these are flawed, many are good judgments. How could this be if we cannot make inferences based on facts alone? The solution involves recognizing that there are moral facts. Are there moral facts? David Hume denied that there were and this denial has carried forward very well and is still a pervasive attitude not only among philosophers but the public at large. After all, there don't seem to be elements to morality that clearly stand out as the facts which tell us that something is right or wrong. According to James Rachels in his book The Elements of Moral Philosophy, the mistake comes from thinking that there are only two possibilities regarding moral facts. Either they are like the facts of science or any other empirical study or there are no moral facts. But, this ignores an important third alternative. There are moral facts and these are facts of reason. The moral judgments we make are backed up by facts of reason which means that I can provide good, objective grounds for saying that a certain moral judgment is true and a certain other moral judgment is false. In other words, we can derive an ought from an is as long as we include in our facts some moral facts. One of the reasons we think that this cannot be done is because we look at the most difficult cases, like abortion, find them difficult and from this conclude that proving anything in ethics is impossible. This is the wrong approach. To illustrate let's consider some simpler examples considered by Rachels in The Elements of Moral Philosophy: “A student says that a test given by a teacher was unfair. This is clearly a moral judgment— fairness is a basic moral value. Can this judgment be proved? The student might point out that the test covered in detail matters that were quite trivial, while ignoring matters the teacher had stressed as important. The test also included questions about some 9 matters that were not covered in either the readings or the class discussions. Moreover, the test was so long that not even the best students could complete it in the time allowed (and it was to be graded on the assumption that it should be completed). Suppose all this is true. And further suppose that the teacher, when asked to explain, has no defense to offer. In fact, the teacher, who is rather inexperienced, seems muddled about the whole thing and doesn’t seem to have had any very clear idea of what he was doing. Now, hasn’t the student proved the test was unfair? What more in the way of proof could we want?” Of course you might be saying that this wouldn't convince the teacher. But, there is a distinction between proving an opinion to be correct and persuading someone. The two are different and the fact that someone is not persuaded doesn't mean you haven't proven your case. What we need is a way to evaluate, objectively, whether the evidence we're putting forward is good, relevant, evidence. Certainly in the case cited, the evidence does prove the case. I mean, what else would you have the student do to prove their case?! We can also illustrate the point with other cases: “Jones is a bad man. Jones is a habitual liar; he manipulates people; he cheats when he thinks he can get away with it; he is cruel to other people; and so on. “Dr. Smith is irresponsible. He bases his diagnoses on superficial considerations; he drinks before performing delicate surgery; he refuses to listen to other doctors’ advice; and so on. “A certain used‐car dealer is unethical. She conceals defects in her cars; she takes advantage of poor people by pressuring them into paying exorbitant prices for cars she knows to be defective; she runs misleading advertisements in any newspaper that will carry them; and so on. “ In each case, we are deriving a moral claim from a set of facts. And, if we cannot derive these moral claims from a set of facts, we simply cannot make moral claims. After all, the facts are all we have! Another take on this which illustrates that we can provide a way out of the is-ought problem is offered by Sam Harris in his TED talk: Science can answer moral questions Quora Question: Why should we be moral if there's no judgment after death? Morality evolved in the first place because of the benefits it conferred on the individuals who acted in accordance with these intuitions and has thrived not only because of the benefits to individuals but to society as a whole.
Most people have the disposition to be social, feel sympathy, and cooperate with others. These dispositions form the basis of morality. Imagine that you either did not have these dispositions or, as your question seems to imply, that you consciously reject them in the absence of a final judgment. Now, think about how your life might go as a result of that. Or better, try a few simple, harmless experiments and see what happens. These will work very well if you live in an apartment complex or other fairly close community where you know many of the people you interact with on a daily basis. Try ignoring them when they greet you for a start. Then try refusing to help them when they are obviously in need. Don’t help your neighbor carry in their groceries. Don’t offer assistance to someone who is asking you for help. Things like that. What do you imagine will be the result of all of this? You may be thinking, nothing since there is no judgment after death. But, what about the judgment you will receive in the here and how? For most people, that will carry quite a bit of weight. And, make no mistake the judgment will be negative. Are you willing to alienate yourself from your neighbors in this way? And, even if you do the odds are that you won’t feel good about it. This is true because, for most people not only do you have the dispositions to be social, feel sympathy, and cooperate, but you feel good when you do these things. That is another central feature of morality. One which naturally arose and benefits not only you as an individual but the rest of society as well. Contrary to the belief your question presupposes, the world would be a much worse place if people only behaved morally because they feared a judgment after death. For one thing, people are not very good at projecting their future status and predicting what effects this will have on them. Witness most people’s poor savings habits. They know for certain they will need money when they get older but yet do not save it now to have enough to live on when the time comes that they will need it. And, this is a much more pressing need for most people than what happens after death. After all, we are absolutely certain that we will get old and need money to live on when we cannot work. We can only have strong beliefs about what will happen when we die. So, the motivator you propose to keep people behaving morally simply doesn’t work. Psychology has shown that time and time again. People rarely alter their behavior now on the basis of consequences that happen in the long away future. That is why morality arose to work the way it does with both immediate and short term benefits. Finally, on what basis would this judgment occur and what will be viewed as beneficial and what will be viewed as damnable? It is unclear from sacred texts how to answer this. Will it be beneficial to kill infidels? Some say it is a duty to do so and they derive this from a sacred text. You might argue they are wrong but the point is that the text is unclear enough to allow for alternate interpretations. Society could not survive on morality with such unclear rules. So, there are good and natural reasons for being moral. Dale McGowan put the point nicely in this way: "But when the discussion turned to morality, he [the theist] said something I will never forget. 'We need divine commandments to distinguish between right and wrong,' he said. 'If not for the seventh commandment...' He pointed to his wife in the front row. ' ...there would be nothing keeping me from walking out the door every night and cheating on my wife!' "His wife, to my shock, nodded in agreement. The room full of evangelical teens nodded, wide-eyed at the thin scriptural thread that keeps us from falling into the abyss. "I sat dumbfounded. Nothing keeps him from cheating on his wife but the seventh commandment? Really? "Not love? How about respect? I thought. And the promise you made when you married her? And the fact that doing to her what you wouldn't want done to you is wrong in every moral system on Earth? Or the possibility that you simply find your marriage satisfying and don' t need to fling yourself at your secretary? Are respect and love and integrity and fulfillment really so inadequate that you need to have it specifically prohibited in stone? Of course not. There are good reasons for being and doing good." For a more extended analysis Sam Harris’ essay is also good: The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos  As human beings, we have a unique ability to see things in different ways. Two people can look at the same thing at see differences. Or, the same person can see differences when looking at the same thing at different times. This raises several interesting philosophical questions. What are things really like independent of how we see them? Can we ever know which perspective is the correct one?
Of course, for many people, the answer to the second question is very easy. The correct perspective is theirs! We often find it difficult to imagine how anyone could see things otherwise or that there could be any validity to a perspective other than our own. This inability contributes to many of our most contentious debates on topics of politics and religion. The capacity for empathy is, in part, the ability to take the perspective of another person. It is a very powerful skill and one that is critical to good thinking. While it doesn't come easily this skill can be learned. But, it requires being open to asking a few difficult questions. What if my view on this topic is wrong? What if there is another equally valid viewpoint? What if there is information I am missing which would cause me to change my perspective? Here are some thinking tips from the C.I.A. which can also help with this: 1. Become proficient in developing alternative points of view. 2. Do not assume that the other person will think or act like you. 3. Think backward. Instead of thinking about what might happen, put yourself into the future and try to explain how a potential situation could have occurred. 4. Imagine that the belief you are currently holding is wrong, and then develop a scenario to explain how that could be true. This helps you to see the limitations of your own beliefs. 5. Try out the other person's beliefs by actually acting out the role. This breaks you out of seeing the world through the habitual patterns of your own beliefs. 6. Play "devil's advocate" by taking the minority point of view. This helps you see how alternative assumptions make the world look different. 7. Brainstorm. A quantity of ideas leads to quality because the first ones that come to mind are those that reflect old beliefs. New ideas help you to break free of emotional blocks and social norms. 8. Interact with people of different backgrounds and beliefs. If you look closely at this list and compare it with your everyday life you will see that you mostly don't do these things. Most people mostly don't do these things. We tend to associate with people we already agree with, read material we already agree with, and watch media with views we already agree with. So, it becomes very difficult to even imagine someone thinking differently. And, next to impossible to imagine that someone could think differently for good reasons. But, keep in mind that since everyone else thinks this way as well there are people who are listening to and watching media with which they agree but that disagrees with whatever view you hold. And, they believe the same thing about your view! Breaking out of this limiting perspective is an important part of becoming a good critical thinker. Quora Question: What is wrong with the philosophy that life is just a game and humans are just the pieces you play with? It depends on what the implications are that you have in mind but the way you phrase the question makes it sound as if there is potentially something deeply wrong with this outlook.
From a deontology perspective, you are putting forth a principle that would be very difficult to turn into a universal rule of action. According to this ethical theory, an action is morally correct if it could be made into a universal rule that everyone should follow. But, what if everyone acted on the principle that “life is just a game and humans are just the pieces you play with?” Would there be any respect for individual liberty? Would there be any respect for personal autonomy? Would there be any respect for private property? Would there be any respect for anyone’s life? It would seem not. If there were, how could this be justified given your principle? From a simple “golden rule” perspective how would this work? Would you wish others to treat you the way you are suggesting treating them? If not, why not? Would you try to maintain that you should be exempt from the principle that you are using to relate to others? If so, why? If you would wish others to treat you this way, have you really thought through the implications of what this treatment would entail? If you are just a “piece to play with” does that mean if you no longer serve any useful (or fun) purpose we can just eliminate you? Would you be OK with that? At best, your principle sounds like a version of egoism which itself is a problematic ethical theory. Without going into all the details of egoism, the basic idea is that we should act only out of our own self-interest without taking into account the interests of others. A major problem with this outlook is that it is unacceptably arbitrary. What makes you so different from everyone else? Why are you so special? If you think about it you discover that there's no good reason for singling one person out as better or more special. We're all basically the same in our desire for happiness and our right to be treated with respect and dignity. Unless there are any relevant differences between ourselves and everyone else we cannot justify different treatment. If my desire for happiness should be fulfilled and if my basic needs should be met so too should everyone else's. There's no good argument for disregarding the interests of others. As the Dalai Lama often points out, we should instead be “wisely selfish” understanding that our own interests and well-being are deeply connected with the interests and well-being of others. In a world as deeply interconnected as ours, we depend on others for our very lives. Their right to happiness is just as important as ours. Their right to happiness, their well-being, and their interests are just as important as yours. And, because they have interests, rights, and the very kind of life you do, they ought not to be regarded as “pieces to play with.” For that matter, neither should you. From a philosophical standpoint there are several prominent theories of happiness each of which defines happiness in a slightly different way and offers a different approach to achieving it.
In addition to these major philosophical theories (which I’ll summarize below), there has also been a resurgence of interest by psychologists in happiness due, in part, to Martin Seligman’s positive psychology. This has led to quite a burst of popular books that have been published in recent years many of which are interesting and insightful. As for some of the major philosophical theories: Hedonism: The basic idea of this happiness theory is that pursuing pleasure is the best way to achieve happiness. But, philosophers like Epicurus who advocate this approach caution against misunderstanding what they mean by “pleasure.” For Epicurus, this does not mean the pursuit of “wine, women, and song.” Instead, it means the pursuit of those things which are necessary for happiness. For Epicurus that list is surprisingly small and simple: friendship, freedom, contemplation. For more on this approach you can read Epicurus’ Principle Doctrines. Virtue Ethics: Similar in its promotion of things such as friendship and contemplation, Aristotle’s approach to happiness is one based on pursuing the virtues. But, again, like the word “pleasure” we may be tempted to misunderstand “virtue.” For Aristotle, the virtues are traits of character which will lead to a well-lived life. They are the mean between two extremes: either too much or too little of the virtue. Courage is a good example. It is the mean between the extremes of cowardice and foolhardiness. For more on Aristotle’s approach to happiness you can read his Nichmachean Ethics. Utilitarianism: This approach was advocated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 18th and 19th centuries. For Bentham happiness was defined as the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. While he thought these could be quantified he was quick to point out that he did not mean his approach to be confused with hedonism. Whereas hedonism is usually associated with the pursuit of personal pleasure, the utilitarians were always quick to point out that they were concerned with the happiness of everyone. Indeed, this is how the principle of utility was formulated by Mill who said we should act so that our actions create the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Though he disagreed with Bentham’s purely quantitative approach, he was also concerned with the happiness of others, not just with the self. John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism is a good introduction to his ideas. As I mentioned above, there is a rich literature concerning happiness that has developed over the past few decades. Among all the voices discussing this topic, the Dalai Lama is an interesting one to consider. He points out, much like Aristotle did, that happiness is the ultimate purpose of our lives as human beings. And, in spite of being a religious leader, in the tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, he advocates a secular approach to ethics to achieve this ultimate goal. His books on The Art of Happiness and The Art of Happiness at Work are insightful and well worth reading. Other good works you may find interesting include: Stumbling on Happiness by Dan Gilbert The Happiness Project by Gretchen Rubin The How of Happiness by Sonja Lyubomirsky Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Mihaly Csikszentmihaly Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman Quora Question: How can US politics become less acrimonious? I think there are several components to this very good question. It may be that many of these will have to be addressed together before any real progress can be made. However, even if the political climate can be improved we must always remember that what is at issue are deeply held and divergent views about how life ought to be lived so a certain amount of acrimony will probably always be present.
Having said that here are a few of the components that, in my opinion as a philosopher and educator, need to be addressed. Individual knowledge: The basic principles of government and economics are necessary to any well-informed political discourse and these basics are sorely lacking. Whether or not school curricula can be improved to address this problem, ultimately, individuals need to begin to recognize that they are responsible for their own education in these areas. Individuals need to read the central documents of American political literature including the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist writings, and other relevant documents. Individual discourse: The basic principles of good dialogue are also required in order improve our politics. Not only does that include some basic principles of reasoning and the ability to recognize logical fallacies, but as important, is the ability to engage in civil discourse. This video outlines a good way to do this: Take "the Other" to lunch Political Pressure: Having laid a foundation of individual knowledge and discourse it will then be possible to bring political pressure to bear on elected officials. One effective tactic is to give no attention to political demagogues; simply don’t show up at their events. Cut off their “oxygen supply,” so to speak. Encourage others to do this. For well-educated voters, this should be an easy tactic. Join together: Political action can be more effective when individuals join together. There is nothing inherently wrong with lobbying government through interest groups. If you don’t like the message that a particular interest group is promoting, join or create another to get the counter message out. Discourage gratuitous partisanship: There will always be partisanship but it should be possible to discourage partisanship for the sake of partisanship. One possible group which can help with this is called No Labels: Stop Fighting. Start Fixing. Finally, remember that people of goodwill are going to disagree about political issues. That makes them human, not evil. Not everyone will agree with your political outline. Let’s learn to listen, learn, and engage with the process. Urban Confessional: A free listening project might be another good resource. |
KEVIN J. BROWNEPhilosopher / Educator 
These blog posts contain links to products on Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Categories
All
 
 
Archives
January 2023
|
RSS Feed
