Thus, two distinct and contradictory conceptions of liberty have been advanced in a long succession of great books. The first of these commends the study of great books for an education in virtue in light of a recognition of human membership in a created order to which we must conform and that we do not ultimately govern. The other argues against the study of great books and asserts a form of human greatness that seeks the human mastery of nature, particularly by the emphasis of modern science. This latter conception of liberty does not seek merely to coexist alongside an older conception, but requires the active dismantling of this idea of liberty and hence the transformation of education away from the study of great books and toward the study of āthe great book of natureā with the end of its mastery.
We are forced to consider whether the justification for studying the great books is sufficient: whether simply presenting these books as general representatives of āgreatnessā does not in fact contribute to the undermining of the study of the great books. Perhaps we even need to reconsider the very language of greatness, and consider commending instead humble books, or at least great books that teach humility, in contrast to those great books that advance a version of Promethean greatness, an aspiration that has undermined the study of books.
https://firstthings.com/against-great-books/
Deneen presents one common critique of secular great books programs like mine, where no Truth organizes the study, but each student is left to find a path for themselves (with friends and mentors). This view of education faces a simple and in my view catastrophic problem: it is parochial. In a diverse educational market like that in the US, it will only attract those who already agree. It cannot be transformative (except by accident and not on its own terms.) Perhaps the idea (as implied by the integralism Deneen espouses) is that education will be centralized and Truth will be taught by authority. It is difficult to imagine how stuffing something called "Truth" down the throats of the unwilling will have a positive result. Plato and Aristotle (whom Deneen has studied) understood well that education must be undertaken willingly, or it will be spat out like poison. That leaves a final alternative: That we only educate the willing believers in Truth, and leave the rest to fend for themselves. That suggests a complete dereliction of our civic duties as teachers and scholars. I have many friends in Deneen's camp, and I ask them this: What kind of education should an ordinary American receive? Not the select few in one's tribe, but all of them? The performative Christians, the non-religious, the fiery atheist, the progressive, the free-market conservative, the indifferent consumerist -- all of them!
https://x.com/zenahitz/status/2075654134145966588
Zena is perfectly right here: if you organize an educational program around a capital-T Truth that you've defined in advance, you're only going to attract the people who agree with you already. Maybe that's your goal! But it isn't any kind of real social prescription. You also limit your pool of instructors, and if you draw only on instructors who agree with you already, you are mostly not hiring the people most skilled in this style of teaching. Again, that's a choice you can make, but it's a genuine sacrifice. At the extremes you sacrifice your ability to teach certain authors properly. If Marx and Nietzsche and Freud are on your syllabus only as exempla of mistakes to be avoided, you will not read them honestly and will not be able to teach them competently.
https://x.com/dwaldenwrites/status/2075681451765350863
People are arguing about "great books" again on Twitter. I'm trying to figure out how much I care about this.