KarenG

I like the distinction that philosophy doesn't create connections, it discovers them. I don't know that I have anything of substance to add to your essential question, but I just want to add my enthusiasm for Coleridge to yours. Until recently, I always thought of Coleridge as an opium-influenced Romantic poet who wrote The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Kubla Khan, and not much else. For years, I've know that Charlotte Mason referred to him as a "philosopher," but I didn't really investigate. Last year, I acquired a copy of Coleridge's Treatise on Method, and was absolutely floored. It's not easy reading, but this work had a deep influence on Charlotte Mason, and it's basically a discussion of the similar method of Bacon and Plato, in spite of Bacon's claim to be rejecting Plato. Here's a bit of what he says: Education is the science of relations (ala Charlotte Mason), yes?

This question reminds me of this quote from Augustine's City of God: Which is to say--I think you are on the right track when you have your students deliver/imitate existing examples of excellent speech/writing. I honestly think the full fruit of this method will not be observed in high school students. In my experience, a good foundation bears fruit in the college years, when the students have gained a little maturity and experience, and find that they have the words and capacity to express their thoughts because of the reading they have done. Not long ago, I heard a homeschool mother testify that they had not really done a great job with writing during high school. However, her son went to college and impressed all his professors with his ability to write. He told his mother, "Churchill is in my head." (He'd read a lot of Churchill in high school.)

So, I haven't taken the class that this forum refers to, but classical pedagogy seemed like the best place to put this question. Not long ago, I was introduced for the first time to the word "diagesis" (I think I was familiar with the concept before). I've never heard this word used in the discussion of classical pedagogy, but it seems as vital as mimesis, especially since they are paired in Plato's Republic. Since I've never heard this word before, I'm guessing it will be as new to most of us as it was to me, but I'd love to talk about it, especially with anyone who is familiar with it. If not--if it's as new to others as to me--do you think it it worth as exploring as a neglected aspect of classical pedagogy, or is it less about pedagogy and more about something else? Anyone want to read the following article and start thinking about this with me? http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/article/diegesis-–-mimesis

I read through this book recently (and loved it). Without the benefit of a book discussion group--that would be so nice! What caught my attention in the discussion about piety was this idea: "piety signifies the duty, love, and respect owed to God, parents, and communal authorities." With that idea in mind, I don't think denominational differences have to matter. The fundamental point is that we, as persons (even small persons) have a duty toward others--toward parents first, then to other authorities (such as in a school), but also toward classmates. The duty toward God is very abstract, but it can be rooted in the small duties of neatness, orderliness, fair play, obedience, etc...that operate in a home and school. I was reminded of Charlotte Mason's motto for her schools: "I am, I can, I ought, I will." That "ought" is that which is owed--the duties we owe to others, and even small children can begin to understand "ought" and their obligation to choose (will) to fulfill those duties. Line upon line, precept upon precept. I can see classroom practices such as being quiet while others are speaking, tidying your own space or belongings, lining up in an orderly fashion, puntuality, etc, laying a good foundation in piety, perhaps more easily (to be honest) than the happy organic chaos in a homeschool. When I was reading the chapter on piety, though, I really appreciated the way these duties were linked to love, and helping children to learn to do things out of love and consideration for others is more important than just getting them done. "For inevitably, the culture of the school educates as much as its curriculum." Which reminded me of Charlotte Mason's principle "Education is an atmosphere." I don't work in a school, but establishing that atmosphere right at the beginning of a child's school career seems like a good foundation in piety to me.

I would like to know this, too! I'm only peripherally familiar with Montessori's ideas and have no idea what they look like past preschool level.

It's quite possible that they did believe in some kind of reincarnation. I do think there is a kind of innate knowledge that we have, but not because of that. I'm thinking of "the law of God written in their hearts" referred to in Romans chapter 2. But your description of a bullying professor makes me remember again why it's so important to understand questions--what kind of questions are appropriate, and why. Examining the assumptions/fallacies behind a question, or different types of questions, seems like an interesting line of inquiry in itself!

I'm coming to this really late, and I haven't read what David Diener said (I don't think--although I did read his little book on Plato), but I wonder if this has anything to do with the rhetorician/philosopher pedagogical question discussed in Norms and Nobility? If I'm not completely messing thing up in my memory, I think the philosopher's school (to which Plato and Socrates belonged) believed that people had some kind of innate knowledge within them, and Socratic questioning is meant to draw that out. I'm just guessing here.

Sorry for jumping into the discussion when I'm not taking the class (which I kind of regret, since Dr. Taylor is teaching it?), but the forum guidelines say it's okay, so here I go. I definitely think poetic knowledge of math is possible, but it's not the same as the exact knowledge of how to solve equations. We teach little children to count by rote (one, two, three), but that's not poetic. Poetic knowledge, I think, comes when we comprehend one to one correspondence, or "threeness" and "fiveness." Or, when you realize for yourself the pattern that emerges when you count by fives. I still remember the first time I saw a diagram of the Pythagorean theorem--each side of a triangle "squared"--and realized what "a-squared plus b-squared equals c-squared" actually *meant.* I love using Cuisenaire rods in grades 1-3 because of the innate sense of relationships between numbers that develops with their regular use. The wonder and joy of discovering patterns and relationships is definitely a poetic way of interacting with math.

Aww. That was nice to hear! Thank you for telling me!

Anita, I've been having a great time blogging through those liberal arts...I think understanding how they come together is the best part. Not that I fully, do, but that's the part that interests me.

I like the reminder that "music" isn't just about singing, but as you pointed out--that *joy* that is a part of the learning. I find it significant that the primary vehicle God used to teach was story---including historical "story." Thinking about the poems that you remember, I feel like repetition is part of musical education, but in saying that, I know that there is the very real danger of allowing repetition to be rote and dry and tedious, and that is not what I mean--I mean repetition that is delightful, like hearing your favorite poems, or reading the Christmas story aloud every Christmas Eve--that sort of thing. Repetition whose purpose is delight first, with memorization only a distant secondary purpose. "Awakening the imagination" is probably the key thing here.

Well, full disclosure: I don't think I have ANY of Paradise Lost in my mind. That quote about "repairing the ruins" is from Milton's little tractate "On Education." Easy to find online and worth reading--much shorter and more accessible than Paradise Lost. I did read that, and I still have my marked copy, but I hesitate to say how many years ago.

I'm just getting started. I read a bit from an e-text, and then ordered a physical copy. The thing that caught my attention in the first place is his discussion of "hebraism" and "hellenism"--a slightly different take on the modern "Greek vs. Hebrew" discussion. But there's a lot more to it than that.

Thank you. I have just finished reading GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy, and found there a most wonderful insight into the tension between old and new. He's talking about conservatives vs. progressives, but his insight is extremely relevant to the discussion between the classical tradition and the need for reform and change in education. That is my very next blog series, as soon as I finish blogging through The Liberal Arts Tradition. Thanks for commenting on the blog--I don't mind discussion there at all. But I also have a desire to see this forum take root and become a vibrant community, so feel free to discuss here and maybe we can lure in one or two other voices. Edited to add: and I MUST get to Beauty in the Word as soon as I possibly can.

I know it's a long shot, but has anyone read this book?