“This set of books is the result of an attempt to reappraise and re-embody the tradition of the West for our generation.” p. xi
The tradition of the West? I reject the assumption that there is only one, as I reject the concept of a single “American culture.” Judaism, Humanism, atheism, Catholicism, and the various forms of Protestantism are not all equally embraced by the single word “tradition.”
Is the Great Conversation the primary intellectual tradition of the West? It may be. The “isms” I listed are strands within that tradition, and I think it best to maintain an awareness of this pluralism. The word “conversation” maintains this awareness more so than does “tradition.”
“We are as concerned as anybody else at the headlong plunge into the abyss that Western civilization seems to be taking. We believe that the voices that may recall the West to sanity are those which have taken part in the Great Conversation.” p. xii
It would be nice to know in what he thinks this plunge consists; the next quote is suggestive that he means something like spiritual poverty. As for recalling the West to sanity, the history of the West is such a tale of torture, exploitation, blood, and horror that one wonders what “golden age of sanity” Hutchins can be thinking of.
“...education in the West has been steadily deteriorating; the rising generation has been deprived of its birthright; the mess of pottage it has received in exchange [for the great books] has not been nutritious; adults have come to lead lives comparatively rich in material comforts and very poor in moral, intellectual, and spiritual tone.” p. xiii
I think if Hutchins were alive today he would be horrified at the changes in education and mass culture that have occurred since he wrote these words in the early ‘50s. But I have some doubts that the truism of the decline of public education is as true as all that. As I doubt the “golden age of sanity,” I also doubt that there ever was a golden age of education. Like the golden age of Greece, these other golden ages generally seem to ignore the plight “lower classes.”
“The reiteration of slogans, the distortion of the news, the great storm of propaganda that beats upon the citizen twenty-four hours a day all his life long mean either that democracy must fall a prey to the loudest and most persistent propagandists or that the people must save themselves by strengthening their minds so that they can appraise the issues for themselves.” p. xiii
The intellectual level of political debate seems to have declined since the ‘50s, but again I see no real golden age in the past. Sloganeering was not new to the century in which Hutchins wrote—Lincoln was badly treated by his opponents—and I suspect that concern for issues is not much lower than it has ever been. This sort of question is very hard to judge, because at all times there are those who are concerned with the issues and those who aren’t. What has changed is that people are more distracted and scattered than ever by the “pace of civilization.” Reading Great Books won’t change that very much, if at all.
“...the idea that liberal education is the education that everybody ought to have, and that the best way to a liberal education in the West is through the greatest works the West has produced, is still, in our view, the best educational idea there is.” p. xiv
I think the Great Books are a great place to spend some time, but I disagree that they are sufficient for a liberal education. The second edition addresses some of the lacks of the first. But this is a question to which I would like to return as I increase my experience with the Great Conversation.
“[Adult Americans] now have the chance to understand themselves through understanding their tradition.” p. xvi
“Understand yourself” has never been easy, and I think that understanding one’s tradition is only a small part of that task, and probably the easiest to accomplish. I think it is more difficult, and at least as important, to understand your own unique qualities and to achieve the normal evolution of character that James speaks of, which he says chiefly consists in “the straightening out and unifying of the inner self.” (Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 167) I am also reminded of the normal reduction of testosterone levels as men age. Perhaps what we see as wisdom is little more than an increasing calmness and lack of passion due to normal aging processes.
“Why read Copernicus or Faraday if scientists now know everything that they knew, and much more besides?” p. xxi
Hutchins answers by quoting James B. Conant:
“What I propose is the establishment of one or more courses at the college level on the Tactics and Strategy of Science. The objective would be to give a greater degree of understanding of science by the close study of a relatively few historical examples of the development of science.” p. xxi
Popper has a similar take on how to understand science: “ . . . the only way to understand Bohr’s [theory of the atom] is to understand his problem—the problem of combining Rutherford’s atom model with . . . Einstein’s photon theory . . . . The understanding of Bohr’s theory does not lie in visualizing it intuitively but in gaining familiarity with the problems it tries to solve, and in the appreciation of both the explanatory power of the solution and the fact that the new difficulty that it creates constitutes an entirely new problem of great fertility.” (Karl Popper: The Myth of the Framework, p. 102)
I look forward especially to reading Ptolemy’s model of the solar system followed by Copernicus’ response. Few people, even those well versed in modern science, can point to convincing observational evidence for the heliocentric theory. Given the advances in space exploration in our time, it has become hard to understand the problems faced by Copernicus; reading these two may provide that understanding, and, one hopes, the better understanding of science that Conant proposes.
Also, it’s clear that science isn’t everything we need to attain a liberal education. The study of science can impart knowledge, but by itself this study won’t impart the necessary attitudes or develop taste or skill. Attitudes, taste, and skill, and a knowledge of history are probably at least as important as scientific knowledge, and for these, the Great Books offer a place to start.
“The atmosphere we breathe today, because of the universal use of gadgets and machines, because the word ‘scientific’ is employed in a magical sense, and because of the half-hidden technological fabric of our lives, is full of the images and myths of science. The minds of men are full of shadows and reflections of things that they cannot grasp. As Scott Buchanan has said, ‘Popular science has made every man his own quack; he needs some of the doctor’s medicine.’” p. xxiv
I like the Buchanan quote, but I do think that education has increased the common man’s understanding of science. There are differences among quacks, and I think we’re getting a better crop of quackery than we were a century ago, largely because people are more knowledgeable about science. But then, they may also be more intimidated—the science of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is easier to understand than that of the twentieth.
“The Advisory Board recommended that no scholarly apparatus should be included in the set.... The books should speak for themselves, and the reader should decide for himself.” p. xxv
In general I agree with this approach. However, newcomers to Shakespeare will find some of his language very obscure. Explanatory footnotes, at least glosses, will tend to enhance one’s enjoyment and understanding without coloring or contaminating one’s view of the whole. Just as we need translations from the Greek, we may also need translations of the obscurer passages of Shakespeare. Indeed, the set provides translations of Chaucer, and the Herodotus and Plato volumes provide some footnotes. I would have welcomed more.
Quoting Sir Richard Livingstone: “We are tied down, all our days and for the greater part of our days, to the commonplace. That is where contact with great thinkers, great literature helps. In their company we are still in the ordinary world, but it is the ordinary world transfigured and seen through the eyes of wisdom and genius. And some of their vision becomes our own.” p. 2-3
I agree completely with this expression of the value of reading great books; but I’m not so sure that reading modern works is any less valuable. Here’s my final word on the perhaps tired subject of what is left out of the GBWW: Some questions are undoubtedly better addressed in more modern works. I think of these as “modern” questions: race relations, prejudice, and feminism; naturally enough, nowhere in the GBWW first edition can we find anything that addresses these questions with the vigor and relevance of, say, The Autobiography of Malcolm X or the works of Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet, while recognizing the lacks, all the books of the GBWW are worth reading, and they could not be everything that’s worth reading.
“It would seem that [education through great books and the liberal arts] is the best for everybody... provided everybody can get it. The question, then, is: Can everybody get it? This is the most important question in education. Perhaps it is the most important question in the world.” p. 17
I don’t agree with this assessment. I can think of several other questions that I consider more important, having to do with the dangers of nuclear weapons, war, overpopulation, and the degradation of the environment. I think, however, he might partly agree with this and say that solutions to all these problems—which are largely political problems—will be found when most everyone has a liberal education. But for that to occur, some social problems must be addressed. Progress is piecemeal and requires parallel advances on many fronts.
“The educational system seeks to establish the rational foundations for good physical, moral, and social behavior. These rational foundations are the result of liberal education.” p. 26
I think modern philosophy has a lot to say about the presumed “rational foundations” of a domain of thought. Wittgenstein says, “ I did not get my picture of the world by satisfying myself of its correctness; nor do I have it because I am satisfied of its correctness. No: it is the inherited background against which I distinguish between true and false.” (Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, section 94) The rationalist ideal as I understand it is to have indubitable assumptions from which all knowledge can be deduced. The recognition that this is not possible I think began with Hume. But this ideal still has its adherents.
“Do science, technology, industrialization, and specialization render the Great Conversation irrelevant?” p. 29
“...specialization [in the education provided], instead of making the Great Conversation irrelevant, makes it more pertinent than ever.” p. 30
It is not easy to say how one gets wisdom. Certainly, reading the Great Books is a place to start. Once that is done, it seems reasonable to believe that one will be wise enough to know or find a path—or paths—to even greater wisdom.
“...the task of the future is the creation of a community. Community seems to depend on communication.... The effectiveness of modern communication in promoting a community depends on whether there is something intelligible and human to communicate. This, in turn, depends on a common language, a common stock of ideas, and common human standards. These the Great Conversation affords.” p. 30
Here he seems to be anticipating the objection that he addresses later, that the West is not the whole world, that one would do well to study Islam, Buddhism, the traditions of India, and the like. I am not persuaded that a study of the Great Conversation can lead to better communications with persons of other traditions, as he argues later.
“...we are often told that any question that is not answerable by the empirical methods of science is not really answerable at all, or at least not by significant and verifiable statements.”
With this statement Hutchins introduces the question of the scientific method and its application to other fields, and, it seems, the approach to other fields exemplified by the Logical Positivists. While the more extreme of the positivists have been discredited, the question is still a troublesome one, and I eagerly anticipate seeing what light the Great Conversation will shed on it. As Hutchins goes on to say:
“The Great Conversation . . . contains both sides of the issue that in modern times is thought to have a most critical bearing on the significance of the Great Conversation itself.” (p. 33-35)
He also asks the question, “How many valid methods of inquiry are there?” (p. 40) but does not attempt to answer it. My favorite quote from William James seems relevant here: “There are moments of sentimental and mystical experience . . . that carry an enormous sense of inner authority and illumination with them when they come. But they come seldom, and they do not come to everyone; and the rest of life makes either no connection with them, or tends to contradict them more than it confirms them. Some persons follow more the voice of the moment in these cases, some prefer to be guided by the average results.” (ibid, p. 17)
I doubt that “moments of sentimental and mystical experience” would rate with Hutchins as “valid methods of inquiry”—but nevertheless they do have substantial value to religious believers. According to the James quote, they have more value to believers than does mundane experience. Perhaps they should have greater value to us all; one hopes that the GBWW will address these questions.
“What is here proposed is interminable liberal education. Even if the individual has the best possible liberal education in youth, interminable education through great books and the liberal arts remains his obligation . . . “ p. 52
I like the idea that one is obligated to become and remain well educated. In this regard I fear that I am in a small minority.
“The twin aims that have animated mankind since the dawn of history are the conquest of nature and the conquest of drudgery.” p. 52 or 53
Hutchins is regrettably prone to this kind of sweeping generalization. It is not difficult to come up with similar aims that seem just as persuasive, such as, perhaps, “conquest of fear and hopelessness.” Here’s another Hutchins generalization: “The trials of the citizen now surpass anything that previous generations ever knew.” (p. 52 or 53) On the face of it this seems quite silly if we compare the ‘50s or the present to the time of the Reformation or the Civil War. He may have intended to speak of the intellectual challenges of our times rather than mere survival; if so, I would tend to agree.
“If independent judgment is the sine qua non of effective citizenship in a democracy, then it must be admitted that such judgment is harder to maintain now than it ever has been before.” p. 53
Another overwrought generalization. It would be equally possible to argue that independence of judgment has never been easier to attain. I admit I’m picking nits here, however. But at times he sounds like a sales brochure.
“This set of books is organized on the principle of attaining clarification and understanding of the most important issues, as stated by the greatest writers of the West, through continuous discussion. Its object is to project the Great Conversation into the future and to have everybody participate in it. The community toward which it is hoped that these books may contribute is the community of free minds.” p. 60
Yeah, bring it on! It has occurred to me that one could faithfully follow the ten-year reading plan in such a dilatory and inattentive way that one might emerge with nothing more than an increase in one’s ego. Hopefully, the conversation in the Great Conversation Yahoo group will discourage such a thoughtless approach.
“We hear a great deal nowadays about international understanding, world community, and world organization. These things are all supposed to be good; but nothing very concrete is put forward as to the method by which they can be attained. We can be positive on one point: we are safe in saying that these things will not be brought about by vocational training, scientific experiment, and specialization. The kind of education we have for young people and adults in the United States today will not advance these causes.” p. 62
Two things occur to me here. First, the United States is presently the greatest obstacle to any kind of effective world organization. Chances are that any country as preeminent in power as the United States would be equally reluctant to give up any sovereignty. Second, the kind of education the U.S. offers its young people did not develop in a vacuum—it is the result of the public’s perception or misperception of proper educational goals and practices. This latter is a vast subject in itself which Hutchins understood well, I think, but I don’t see that a mere change in curriculum will accomplish what he hopes for.
“We have built up around the ‘classics’ such an atmosphere of pedantry, we have left them so long to the scholarly dissectors, that we think of them as incomprehensible to the ordinary man to whom they were originally addressed.”
I agree. However, I think we could still have used some scholarly footnotes. What’s likely to happen is that readers who are troubled by their failure to understand a passage will seek understanding from supplementary sources, such as could have been provided by the editors, and many more will simply skip, skim, or give up.
“If you will pick up any one of these books and start to read it, you will find it not nearly so formidable as you thought.” p. 78
I take this with a grain of salt. I think Aristotle, Plotinus, and Aquinas are pretty formidable, and Mortimer Adler, in Aristotle for Everybody, says that Aristotle is very difficult.
“The democratic enterprise is imperiled if any one of us says, ‘I do not have to try to think for myself, or make the most of myself, or become a citizen of the world republic of learning.’ The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.” p. 80
I am troubled by the current state of U.S. democracy. I don’t know that what is needed is necessarily a reading of the Great Books, but rather the desire to obtain what Hutchins calls a “liberal education,” which I see as approximately the same as a desire to develop one’s independence of judgment. Instead of this desire I see an ever more pervasive reliance on “experts” to supply us with “authoritative judgments.” And in the media I see an ever more pervasive tendency to propagandize on behalf of a particular political agenda which I find inimical to the interests of the people as a whole. This is an explosive combination, dangerous to the continuance of freedom in the United States and the world.
Quotes are from Robert Maynard Hutchins: Great Books of the Western World, vol. 1: The Great Conversation: The Substance of a Liberal Education, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, 1952
Alan Nicoll's Home
Alan Nicoll's email address is: Alan_Nicoll@Yahoo.com. Your comments are welcome. Join the Great Conversation!