What do you think?
Rate this book
Reforming Education: The Opening of the American Mind
Spanning the breadth of his career, from 1939 to 1989, this book is the response from Mortimer J. Adler to the question What can be done about American education? For Adler, the best education is one that offers the best education possible for all.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1989
7 people are currently reading
612 people want to read
About the author
Mortimer J. Adler
571 books1,027 followersNumerous published works of American educator and philosopher Mortimer Jerome Adler include
How to Read a Book
(1940) and
The Conditions of Philosophy
(1965).
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
February 4, 2018
My introduction to Adler - and I have to say, I was quite impressed! This book really made me think and changed some of my perceptions on education. From the differences between child and adult education to a philosophical discussion of the meanings of leisure and work to what constitutes a Great Book to implementing Socratic dialogue into the classroom - there were a LOT of topics and ideas of which I had never before considered. I feel my mind opening and expanding.
September 15, 2017
Melihatkan fenomena enggan masuk ke sekolah atau universiti yang kian melarat lewat setengah abad ini, sangatlah wajar sama sekali untuk kita meneliti makna pendidikan itu sendiri kerana dengan pendidikanlah sesebuah tamadun itu mampu berkembang maju.
Terdapat banyak isu menarik dan signifikan yang dikupas dengan cukup menarik oleh tokoh intelektual awam ini. Antara mesej terbesarnya ialah bagaimana kita hendak menanam erti pendidikan sepanjang hayat dalam diri seseorang graduan universiti usai mereka tamat pengajian di universiti dan memasuki alam pekerjaan.
Bermula dari sinilah Adler mengulas satu persatu kerancuan yang wujud dalam sistem pendidikan universiti dan jalan penyelesaiannya.
Buku ini pada asalnya hendak menjawab permasalahan yang wujud dalam indoctrinal learning yang digagaskan oleh Allan Bloom dalam karyanya The Closing of The American Mind selain pandangan skeptik Bloom terhadap falsafah moral dan kegagalan Bloom untuk menyentuh mengenai sistem demokrasi dalam pendidikan. Tidak lupa juga, Adler menulis buku ini untuk menerangkan prinsip-prinsip asas dalam gerakan buku-buku agung (great book movement).
Jika kita amati graduan lepasan universiti atau kolej pada hari ini, kebanyakan daripada mereka tidak mampu untuk membaca karya-karya agung dalam setiap disiplin ilmu yang wujud. Hal ini berlaku kerana kita sudah dihidangkan dengan bahan yang sudah dicernakan dalam bentuk yang mudah melalui buku teks bagi setiap bidang yang diambil. Jika diberikan buku asal mengenai sesuatu disiplin ilmu tersebut kepada para graduan, sudah tentu mereka gagal memahaminya.
Begitu juga kita dapat lihat dengan sistem peperiksaan yang jelas-jelas mempamerkan jurang ilmu yang ada pada seseorang pelajar itu semasa musim peperiksaan dan pada bukan musim peperiksaan. Seandainya diberikan peperiksaan mengejut, pasti jurang yang sama akan wujud.
Adler lebih gemar menggunakan istilah karya-karya agung (great books) berbanding karya-karya klasik (classic books) kerana istilah karya agung lebih tepat kerana sesebuah karya agung mempunyai beberapa kriteria dan boleh wujud pada zaman yang terkemudian. Bukan pada zaman dahulukala sahaja.
Menurut Mark Twain, karya agung ialah sesebuah buku yang diimpi-impikan oleh semua individu untuk membacanya tetapi tidak ramai yang mampu membacanya in the end. Menurut Carl Van Doren pula, karya agung ialah buku yang tidak perlu ditulis lagi kerana ia sudah sempurna dan tidak mampu ditambah baik lagi. John Erskine pula menyebut ianya merupakan buku yang tahan zaman. Dalam hal ini, Adler menambah lima kriteria lain iaitu:
i. Buku yang boleh didiskusikan (Buku teks sudah tentu tidak tergolong dalam kategori ini).
ii. Buku yang berbaloi dibaca berulang kali tetapi perlu dibaca banyak kali untuk mendapat kefahaman yang sepenuhnya.
iii. Ditulis oleh seorang generalist. Tidak kira dia mempunyai kepakaran dalam bidang tertentu, tetapi tulisannya mampu juga difahami oleh orang awam yang bijak pandai. Bukan sesama golongan mereka sahaja.
iv. Cakupan karya agung terbuka kepada semua jenis literatur sama ada berbentuk naratif, imaginasi atau apa jua cabang pembelajaran. Tidak hanya terhad kepada puisi, novel dan drama sahaja.
Senarai buku-buku agung yang telah digubah sedikit daripada How To Read A Book menurut penulis ada dikepilkan pada penghujung buku ini. Kata penulis, untuk membaca buku-buku agung ini, sudah tentu memerlukan ilmu-ilmu alatnya iaitu liberal arts. Empat kemahiran asas dalam liberal arts iaitu kemahiran membaca, mendengar, menulis dan bertutur selain ilmu matematik dan kemahiran saintifik merupakan perkara yang wajib dikuasai. Pecahan liberal arts yang lain iaitu trivium-quadrivium (grammar, logic & rhetoric) juga perlu dikuasai semasa di alam persekolahan. Apabila ilmu-ilmu alat ini mampu dikuasai, barulah seseorang individu itu mampu untuk belajar secara terus daripada buku yang dibacanya dan bukan hanya sekadar bergantung kepada gurunya sahaja.
Oleh sebab itulah, apabila ilmu alat ini mampu dikuasai, seseorang itu tidak mempunyai masalah untuk belajar apa-apa perkara selepas tamat alam persekolahan. Mereka tidak akan merasakan bahawa pendidikan itu sudah tamat. Malahan, pendidikan itu bagaikan suatu makanan intelektual bagi mereka sebagaimana karbohidrat dan protein menjadi makanan kepada fizikal mereka. Inilah makna seseorang itu sudah membesar dan matang. Mereka berasakan bahawa pendidikan itu bukan merupakan suatu beban atau pekerjaan yang harus dilunaskan. Bahkan pendidikan bagi mereka merupakan satu rutin harian.
Waktu bekerja lantas bertukar menjadi waktu mereka belajar dan waktu senggang pula bertukar menjadi waktu mereka bekerja.
Ya, dikotomi pendidikan atau pekerjaan itu sering dilihat terpecah kepada liberal training dan vocational training. Lazimnya, apabila seseorang belajar for the sake of learning, mereka terkategori dalam liberal training. Jika mereka belajar for the sake of earning, mereka tergolong dalam kategori vocational training. Ini tidak sedikit pun menunjukkan bahawa sekalian mekanik yang wujud ini hanya mendapat vocational training sahaja. Jika mekanik itu belajar for the sake of learning itself, dia dikira mendapat makna liberal training itu sendiri.
Sebelum mengakhiri ulasan ini, pengkategorian Adler dalam istilah pendidikan itu harus kita ketahui. Adler menggunakan istilah pembelajaran (schooling) bagi pelajar sekolah rendah dan istilah pendidikan (education) bagi sekolah menengah kerana pada awal pendidikan biasanya pelajar lebih terdedah kepada indoktrinisasi para guru, ibubapa dan rakan-rakan mereka. Mereka sangat banyak menyerap budaya dan ilmu daripada mereka. Apabila menjengah ke alam alam sekolah menengah, kolej atau universiti, pembelajaran dialektik akan bermula. Lebih awal, lebih baik bagi memarakkan proses berfikir para pelajar. Peperiksaan lisan merupakan satu-satunya eksperimen yang berjaya menguji laras akal dan kefahaman sebenar seseorang pelajar terhadap sesuatu subjek.
Beberapa persoalan lain yang perlu disebut di sini mungkin berkenaan falsafah moral yang digagaskan oleh Aristotle. Falsafah moral yang wujud pada zaman terkemudian sama ada dari Kant atau JS Mill (utilitarianisme) sendiri mempunyai permasalahan yang tersendiri. Hampir semua perbahasan falsafah yang wujud pada hari ini merupakan nota kaki kepada tulisan Plato dan individu yang paling banyak menyerap dan menulis nota kaki ini dengan jayanya adalah Aristotle kata Adler.
Buku ini sangat penting dalam memahami model pendidikan Adler yang mendapat tempias daripada John Dewey dan seperti biasa, apabila membaca buku Adler, jarang sesuatu bab itu mampu dibiarkan berlalu tanpa ada sedikit pun contengan nota di sebelah halaman tersebut.
Terdapat banyak isu menarik dan signifikan yang dikupas dengan cukup menarik oleh tokoh intelektual awam ini. Antara mesej terbesarnya ialah bagaimana kita hendak menanam erti pendidikan sepanjang hayat dalam diri seseorang graduan universiti usai mereka tamat pengajian di universiti dan memasuki alam pekerjaan.
Bermula dari sinilah Adler mengulas satu persatu kerancuan yang wujud dalam sistem pendidikan universiti dan jalan penyelesaiannya.
Buku ini pada asalnya hendak menjawab permasalahan yang wujud dalam indoctrinal learning yang digagaskan oleh Allan Bloom dalam karyanya The Closing of The American Mind selain pandangan skeptik Bloom terhadap falsafah moral dan kegagalan Bloom untuk menyentuh mengenai sistem demokrasi dalam pendidikan. Tidak lupa juga, Adler menulis buku ini untuk menerangkan prinsip-prinsip asas dalam gerakan buku-buku agung (great book movement).
Jika kita amati graduan lepasan universiti atau kolej pada hari ini, kebanyakan daripada mereka tidak mampu untuk membaca karya-karya agung dalam setiap disiplin ilmu yang wujud. Hal ini berlaku kerana kita sudah dihidangkan dengan bahan yang sudah dicernakan dalam bentuk yang mudah melalui buku teks bagi setiap bidang yang diambil. Jika diberikan buku asal mengenai sesuatu disiplin ilmu tersebut kepada para graduan, sudah tentu mereka gagal memahaminya.
Begitu juga kita dapat lihat dengan sistem peperiksaan yang jelas-jelas mempamerkan jurang ilmu yang ada pada seseorang pelajar itu semasa musim peperiksaan dan pada bukan musim peperiksaan. Seandainya diberikan peperiksaan mengejut, pasti jurang yang sama akan wujud.
Adler lebih gemar menggunakan istilah karya-karya agung (great books) berbanding karya-karya klasik (classic books) kerana istilah karya agung lebih tepat kerana sesebuah karya agung mempunyai beberapa kriteria dan boleh wujud pada zaman yang terkemudian. Bukan pada zaman dahulukala sahaja.
Menurut Mark Twain, karya agung ialah sesebuah buku yang diimpi-impikan oleh semua individu untuk membacanya tetapi tidak ramai yang mampu membacanya in the end. Menurut Carl Van Doren pula, karya agung ialah buku yang tidak perlu ditulis lagi kerana ia sudah sempurna dan tidak mampu ditambah baik lagi. John Erskine pula menyebut ianya merupakan buku yang tahan zaman. Dalam hal ini, Adler menambah lima kriteria lain iaitu:
i. Buku yang boleh didiskusikan (Buku teks sudah tentu tidak tergolong dalam kategori ini).
ii. Buku yang berbaloi dibaca berulang kali tetapi perlu dibaca banyak kali untuk mendapat kefahaman yang sepenuhnya.
iii. Ditulis oleh seorang generalist. Tidak kira dia mempunyai kepakaran dalam bidang tertentu, tetapi tulisannya mampu juga difahami oleh orang awam yang bijak pandai. Bukan sesama golongan mereka sahaja.
iv. Cakupan karya agung terbuka kepada semua jenis literatur sama ada berbentuk naratif, imaginasi atau apa jua cabang pembelajaran. Tidak hanya terhad kepada puisi, novel dan drama sahaja.
Senarai buku-buku agung yang telah digubah sedikit daripada How To Read A Book menurut penulis ada dikepilkan pada penghujung buku ini. Kata penulis, untuk membaca buku-buku agung ini, sudah tentu memerlukan ilmu-ilmu alatnya iaitu liberal arts. Empat kemahiran asas dalam liberal arts iaitu kemahiran membaca, mendengar, menulis dan bertutur selain ilmu matematik dan kemahiran saintifik merupakan perkara yang wajib dikuasai. Pecahan liberal arts yang lain iaitu trivium-quadrivium (grammar, logic & rhetoric) juga perlu dikuasai semasa di alam persekolahan. Apabila ilmu-ilmu alat ini mampu dikuasai, barulah seseorang individu itu mampu untuk belajar secara terus daripada buku yang dibacanya dan bukan hanya sekadar bergantung kepada gurunya sahaja.
Oleh sebab itulah, apabila ilmu alat ini mampu dikuasai, seseorang itu tidak mempunyai masalah untuk belajar apa-apa perkara selepas tamat alam persekolahan. Mereka tidak akan merasakan bahawa pendidikan itu sudah tamat. Malahan, pendidikan itu bagaikan suatu makanan intelektual bagi mereka sebagaimana karbohidrat dan protein menjadi makanan kepada fizikal mereka. Inilah makna seseorang itu sudah membesar dan matang. Mereka berasakan bahawa pendidikan itu bukan merupakan suatu beban atau pekerjaan yang harus dilunaskan. Bahkan pendidikan bagi mereka merupakan satu rutin harian.
Waktu bekerja lantas bertukar menjadi waktu mereka belajar dan waktu senggang pula bertukar menjadi waktu mereka bekerja.
Ya, dikotomi pendidikan atau pekerjaan itu sering dilihat terpecah kepada liberal training dan vocational training. Lazimnya, apabila seseorang belajar for the sake of learning, mereka terkategori dalam liberal training. Jika mereka belajar for the sake of earning, mereka tergolong dalam kategori vocational training. Ini tidak sedikit pun menunjukkan bahawa sekalian mekanik yang wujud ini hanya mendapat vocational training sahaja. Jika mekanik itu belajar for the sake of learning itself, dia dikira mendapat makna liberal training itu sendiri.
Sebelum mengakhiri ulasan ini, pengkategorian Adler dalam istilah pendidikan itu harus kita ketahui. Adler menggunakan istilah pembelajaran (schooling) bagi pelajar sekolah rendah dan istilah pendidikan (education) bagi sekolah menengah kerana pada awal pendidikan biasanya pelajar lebih terdedah kepada indoktrinisasi para guru, ibubapa dan rakan-rakan mereka. Mereka sangat banyak menyerap budaya dan ilmu daripada mereka. Apabila menjengah ke alam alam sekolah menengah, kolej atau universiti, pembelajaran dialektik akan bermula. Lebih awal, lebih baik bagi memarakkan proses berfikir para pelajar. Peperiksaan lisan merupakan satu-satunya eksperimen yang berjaya menguji laras akal dan kefahaman sebenar seseorang pelajar terhadap sesuatu subjek.
Beberapa persoalan lain yang perlu disebut di sini mungkin berkenaan falsafah moral yang digagaskan oleh Aristotle. Falsafah moral yang wujud pada zaman terkemudian sama ada dari Kant atau JS Mill (utilitarianisme) sendiri mempunyai permasalahan yang tersendiri. Hampir semua perbahasan falsafah yang wujud pada hari ini merupakan nota kaki kepada tulisan Plato dan individu yang paling banyak menyerap dan menulis nota kaki ini dengan jayanya adalah Aristotle kata Adler.
Buku ini sangat penting dalam memahami model pendidikan Adler yang mendapat tempias daripada John Dewey dan seperti biasa, apabila membaca buku Adler, jarang sesuatu bab itu mampu dibiarkan berlalu tanpa ada sedikit pun contengan nota di sebelah halaman tersebut.
August 17, 2021
Adler, Mortimer J. Reforming Education: The Opening of the American Mind.
Provocative writers make you rethink assumptions. Truly great writers make you a better human being at what you do. Mortimer Adler is a truly great thinker. This book is a collection of his key essays on education, what is wrong with it, and how to fix it. At the back of every essay is Adler’s commitment to the Great Books program.
We define education as “the process whereby the powers of human nature become developed by good habits” (Adler 17). An educated person is someone who is able to think through the Great Ideas. This means that no one will be an educated person upon graduation of high school or college. All we can reasonably hope to teach are the skills that prepare you to live as a free man. Intrinsic to Adler’s definition are a host of assumptions that will not be granted by today’s academic. Too bad for them. Adler assumes there is a human nature that can develop habits towards the Good.
Following that, if education prepares the free man for society, then there must be some end or goal that society should follow. A good education understands what is good for man at any time in place and/or what is good for man as he is a member of a particular society (44). As such, education cannot be severed from the virtues. Adler asserts that the “proximate ends of education are the moral and intellectual virtues” (60). The ultimate end is the good life.
A habit, accordingly, is a development “of powers or fulfillments of capacities” that “can be said to be good if they conform to the natural tendency of the power of capacity which they development” (61). From one, then, education is quite simple: identify the powers and capacities of a student and develop them towards the Good.
If schooling is simply the perfection of habits so that one may live a life of freedom towards some ultimate End, then we have to change the way we look at schooling. We simply need to make “young learners” rather than degrees (138). This requires revamping entire departments. For example, and here I speak as an English teacher, get rid of the English department. That’s the first step in bringing the humanitie back to the center. English should rather be “The Great Books” plus rhetoric. Part of this is to get rid of the atomistic approach to teaching grammar. Also worth considering are the “three negations: abolish all departments, abolish all electives, abolish all textbooks” (163). If you can only pick one, choose the last one. There is no point in ever using a textbook in a humanities class.
The goal of the teacher is to be, as we saw in Plato’s Thaetaetus, a midwife to the student’s ideas. This requires the teacher to avoid the pitfalls of indoctrinating lecturing on one hand, and freestyle learning on the other. Rather, the teacher must cultivate the mind of the learner. The teacher is a cooperative artist, not a sole cause (171).
I don’t praise all of the book, though. Adler’s approach assumes not only the legitimacy of modern democracy, but even its totalizing approach. He’s consistent, though. If you believe in democracy (or representative government), which at its basic is extending enfranchisement to the whole, then it’s hard to see why public education shouldn’t be compulsory. Of course, I don’t think it is, but only because I don’t grant his major premise.
Provocative writers make you rethink assumptions. Truly great writers make you a better human being at what you do. Mortimer Adler is a truly great thinker. This book is a collection of his key essays on education, what is wrong with it, and how to fix it. At the back of every essay is Adler’s commitment to the Great Books program.
We define education as “the process whereby the powers of human nature become developed by good habits” (Adler 17). An educated person is someone who is able to think through the Great Ideas. This means that no one will be an educated person upon graduation of high school or college. All we can reasonably hope to teach are the skills that prepare you to live as a free man. Intrinsic to Adler’s definition are a host of assumptions that will not be granted by today’s academic. Too bad for them. Adler assumes there is a human nature that can develop habits towards the Good.
Following that, if education prepares the free man for society, then there must be some end or goal that society should follow. A good education understands what is good for man at any time in place and/or what is good for man as he is a member of a particular society (44). As such, education cannot be severed from the virtues. Adler asserts that the “proximate ends of education are the moral and intellectual virtues” (60). The ultimate end is the good life.
A habit, accordingly, is a development “of powers or fulfillments of capacities” that “can be said to be good if they conform to the natural tendency of the power of capacity which they development” (61). From one, then, education is quite simple: identify the powers and capacities of a student and develop them towards the Good.
If schooling is simply the perfection of habits so that one may live a life of freedom towards some ultimate End, then we have to change the way we look at schooling. We simply need to make “young learners” rather than degrees (138). This requires revamping entire departments. For example, and here I speak as an English teacher, get rid of the English department. That’s the first step in bringing the humanitie back to the center. English should rather be “The Great Books” plus rhetoric. Part of this is to get rid of the atomistic approach to teaching grammar. Also worth considering are the “three negations: abolish all departments, abolish all electives, abolish all textbooks” (163). If you can only pick one, choose the last one. There is no point in ever using a textbook in a humanities class.
The goal of the teacher is to be, as we saw in Plato’s Thaetaetus, a midwife to the student’s ideas. This requires the teacher to avoid the pitfalls of indoctrinating lecturing on one hand, and freestyle learning on the other. Rather, the teacher must cultivate the mind of the learner. The teacher is a cooperative artist, not a sole cause (171).
I don’t praise all of the book, though. Adler’s approach assumes not only the legitimacy of modern democracy, but even its totalizing approach. He’s consistent, though. If you believe in democracy (or representative government), which at its basic is extending enfranchisement to the whole, then it’s hard to see why public education shouldn’t be compulsory. Of course, I don’t think it is, but only because I don’t grant his major premise.
August 12, 2018
Adler's primary educational philosophy. He's following closely with the ancient school, of the greats Socrates, Plato & Aristotle in educational philosophy.
This book was also criticizing other book in the same issue, primarily Allan Bloom's Closing of American Mind, John Dewey's Democracy and Education, Bernard Williams's Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy and the teachings at the Chicago School during his time.
His polemics with Lord Russell in 1940 (yes, The Bertrand Russell) here perhaps best accompanied it with further read of his other work, Ten Philosophical Mistakes; whilst me personally will go with How to Speak how to Listen next, considering it is closest on my next to-read list.
Overall, 8/10.
Ps: Reference above are for future me to refer to.
No review for this unfortunately.
This book was also criticizing other book in the same issue, primarily Allan Bloom's Closing of American Mind, John Dewey's Democracy and Education, Bernard Williams's Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy and the teachings at the Chicago School during his time.
His polemics with Lord Russell in 1940 (yes, The Bertrand Russell) here perhaps best accompanied it with further read of his other work, Ten Philosophical Mistakes; whilst me personally will go with How to Speak how to Listen next, considering it is closest on my next to-read list.
Overall, 8/10.
Ps: Reference above are for future me to refer to.
No review for this unfortunately.
March 1, 2025
This book is so riddled with problems on every level that, among informational, non-fiction books, I consider it among the three worst I’ve read this last decade. Even so I’m giving two stars instead of one because identifying and cataloging all its faults has led to some critical thinking, which can be said to be a good thing.
The subtitle of this book, The Opening of the American Mind, and the contents within, reveal this to be a scathing rebuttal to Alan Bloom’s best-selling The Closing of the American Mind. (I read the two books back-to-back; see my separate review of the Allan Bloom book). By page twenty-eight page I was already weary of its resentful, ranting tone. I’m surprised there wasn’t a libel suit over this because on every page Adler does his best to discredit Bloom as an educator, saying “this is wrong,” “that is wrong,” “that’s not the way to teach,” etc. It is obvious that Adler is bitterly resentful of Bloom’s success, and says so more than once to the effect (paraphrasing): I was born 21 years before Bloom and was reading the classics before he was even born, and I’ve published numerous books on this topic and not once did Bloom quote any of my work. Alright already, what’s the big beef?
At the heart of this book is a vigorous and vitriolic disagreement on pedagogical methodology. Bloom states that some children, born into certain circumstances, are just going to find it more difficult to identify with the ideals of the great Western thinkers, but for those who do aspire to understand the classics, you need a master teacher who can inspire an enthusiasm in the students for the underlying worth of the classics in terms of literature, and political and philosophical theory. Basically, an elitist approach. Adler believes in an egalitarian dialectic approach, that is to say, the teacher, who needn’t be an expert at all, need only distill the basic ideas of the book, and then let the students work out what it means to them. He claims that the best education is the one that finds a commonality (inclusiveness) among students at all levels and from all backgrounds.
Adler also rails against Bloom’s historical appraisal of education in America; Bloom saying the downfall began with the counter-cultural movement in the mid-1960's, Adler saying that a sense of relativism began in the late 1930's as a response to the Great Depression’s sense of hopelessness. Having read Kurt Anderson’s jaw-dropping book, Fantasyland, I can say that Bloom is much more accurate. Rousseau noted the sense of detachment from reality and the gee-whiz gullibility of Americans right from the early days of the republic, so ‘subjectivism’ began way before the Great Depression (and only in America, not Europe). But the total disregard for absolute truths or standards of excellence did begin around 1967 with the crazy Timothy Leary cult in California (“Let’s hold hands and levitate the Pentagon to the heavens!!”). So Adler wastes a lot of pages trying prove Bloom wrong when the facts tend to align with Bloom’s more sober analysis. Adler seems to have had a serious disconnect with reality, and actually believed that book clubs might someday replace spectator sporting events!
Even though Adler and I both share a common appreciation for Aristotle, on the matter education - and specifically the manner of teaching - I have to mostly agree with Bloom. A few years back I began look at how the fellow students of my class from elementary school through high school have gotten on in life. I began to puzzle at why so few really succeeded in life, why some ended up with drug problems or criminal records, or died early from poor life choices. We all sat in the same class and had the same educational opportunity (and we were all but one coming from a white middle-class background, so no racial or economic disparity). But the very ones who sneered at the concept of learning have not ended up too well. So when people argue that we need better education I believe that the manner of education or the amount of monetary resources thrown at it don’t matter nearly as much as the type of home culture the children are raised in. This is why neither Bloom nor Adler really answer the pressing issue of failed education. They both live in their separate Ivory Towers. The answer I sought came when reading the truly revelatory findings of Emmanuel Todd in his book The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structures and Social Systems, further corroborated by Historian Ferand Braudel in his book The Structures of Everyday Life.
These two books, more than either Bloom or Adler, explain why students sitting in the same class have differing levels of receptivity based on what they see valued in the own home life. Enlightenment can’t be dictated with a top-down mandate; each student must be intrinsically motivated to understand the world around them beyond immediate self-gratification. And many come from homes that do not place a value on abstract thinking. Fortunately I wasn’t held back too often by recalcitrant students, and often gave presentations to the class myself on various topics, such as my school talk on Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock, which seemed to engage most, but not all, of the student’s attention. Even then I could see exactly the students who were interested and others who shut out the idea altogether. If I had been in a class that catered to the lowest common denominator I would have been extremely frustrated.
This drive toward inclusiveness at all cost became obvious to me when my son was in sixth grade and the school decided to have “Dress like your favorite pop star day.” I was thinking this is not the answer, trying to make school cool and bring Pop Culture into the learning environment. Why would anyone want to emulate Britney Spears or Snoop Dogg? That’s just not going to move humanity forward. But I had my answer more recently when I overheard a contractor talking about a title bout between two women boxers. I recoiled at the thought and asked “Why would two women go into a ring and beat each other senseless?” His answer: “Duh… money.” Then I checked my own gender bias and amended my initial incredulity: “Why would anyone intentionally go into a ring to get their faces battered?" His answer: “They make enough money in a single fight to buy a new face.” This is apparently what the American Dream has become: to make enough money to be lazy and live a life of luxury. But this is not the attitude that put men on the moon!
Since I see no references to sociological factors in any of the five-star ravings, I suggest that all with Inquiring Minds go read these books by Braudel and Todd and then come back and lower your rating for Adler. Educating to the lowest common denominator is not the answer. Working toward a society that values intelligence over Celebrity Worship and Pop Culture is probably a good place to start. By the way, I’m looking at three more books by Adler sitting on my TBR shelf, so I’m hoping to have something more positive to say about the others!
The subtitle of this book, The Opening of the American Mind, and the contents within, reveal this to be a scathing rebuttal to Alan Bloom’s best-selling The Closing of the American Mind. (I read the two books back-to-back; see my separate review of the Allan Bloom book). By page twenty-eight page I was already weary of its resentful, ranting tone. I’m surprised there wasn’t a libel suit over this because on every page Adler does his best to discredit Bloom as an educator, saying “this is wrong,” “that is wrong,” “that’s not the way to teach,” etc. It is obvious that Adler is bitterly resentful of Bloom’s success, and says so more than once to the effect (paraphrasing): I was born 21 years before Bloom and was reading the classics before he was even born, and I’ve published numerous books on this topic and not once did Bloom quote any of my work. Alright already, what’s the big beef?
At the heart of this book is a vigorous and vitriolic disagreement on pedagogical methodology. Bloom states that some children, born into certain circumstances, are just going to find it more difficult to identify with the ideals of the great Western thinkers, but for those who do aspire to understand the classics, you need a master teacher who can inspire an enthusiasm in the students for the underlying worth of the classics in terms of literature, and political and philosophical theory. Basically, an elitist approach. Adler believes in an egalitarian dialectic approach, that is to say, the teacher, who needn’t be an expert at all, need only distill the basic ideas of the book, and then let the students work out what it means to them. He claims that the best education is the one that finds a commonality (inclusiveness) among students at all levels and from all backgrounds.
Adler also rails against Bloom’s historical appraisal of education in America; Bloom saying the downfall began with the counter-cultural movement in the mid-1960's, Adler saying that a sense of relativism began in the late 1930's as a response to the Great Depression’s sense of hopelessness. Having read Kurt Anderson’s jaw-dropping book, Fantasyland, I can say that Bloom is much more accurate. Rousseau noted the sense of detachment from reality and the gee-whiz gullibility of Americans right from the early days of the republic, so ‘subjectivism’ began way before the Great Depression (and only in America, not Europe). But the total disregard for absolute truths or standards of excellence did begin around 1967 with the crazy Timothy Leary cult in California (“Let’s hold hands and levitate the Pentagon to the heavens!!”). So Adler wastes a lot of pages trying prove Bloom wrong when the facts tend to align with Bloom’s more sober analysis. Adler seems to have had a serious disconnect with reality, and actually believed that book clubs might someday replace spectator sporting events!
Even though Adler and I both share a common appreciation for Aristotle, on the matter education - and specifically the manner of teaching - I have to mostly agree with Bloom. A few years back I began look at how the fellow students of my class from elementary school through high school have gotten on in life. I began to puzzle at why so few really succeeded in life, why some ended up with drug problems or criminal records, or died early from poor life choices. We all sat in the same class and had the same educational opportunity (and we were all but one coming from a white middle-class background, so no racial or economic disparity). But the very ones who sneered at the concept of learning have not ended up too well. So when people argue that we need better education I believe that the manner of education or the amount of monetary resources thrown at it don’t matter nearly as much as the type of home culture the children are raised in. This is why neither Bloom nor Adler really answer the pressing issue of failed education. They both live in their separate Ivory Towers. The answer I sought came when reading the truly revelatory findings of Emmanuel Todd in his book The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structures and Social Systems, further corroborated by Historian Ferand Braudel in his book The Structures of Everyday Life.
These two books, more than either Bloom or Adler, explain why students sitting in the same class have differing levels of receptivity based on what they see valued in the own home life. Enlightenment can’t be dictated with a top-down mandate; each student must be intrinsically motivated to understand the world around them beyond immediate self-gratification. And many come from homes that do not place a value on abstract thinking. Fortunately I wasn’t held back too often by recalcitrant students, and often gave presentations to the class myself on various topics, such as my school talk on Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock, which seemed to engage most, but not all, of the student’s attention. Even then I could see exactly the students who were interested and others who shut out the idea altogether. If I had been in a class that catered to the lowest common denominator I would have been extremely frustrated.
This drive toward inclusiveness at all cost became obvious to me when my son was in sixth grade and the school decided to have “Dress like your favorite pop star day.” I was thinking this is not the answer, trying to make school cool and bring Pop Culture into the learning environment. Why would anyone want to emulate Britney Spears or Snoop Dogg? That’s just not going to move humanity forward. But I had my answer more recently when I overheard a contractor talking about a title bout between two women boxers. I recoiled at the thought and asked “Why would two women go into a ring and beat each other senseless?” His answer: “Duh… money.” Then I checked my own gender bias and amended my initial incredulity: “Why would anyone intentionally go into a ring to get their faces battered?" His answer: “They make enough money in a single fight to buy a new face.” This is apparently what the American Dream has become: to make enough money to be lazy and live a life of luxury. But this is not the attitude that put men on the moon!
Since I see no references to sociological factors in any of the five-star ravings, I suggest that all with Inquiring Minds go read these books by Braudel and Todd and then come back and lower your rating for Adler. Educating to the lowest common denominator is not the answer. Working toward a society that values intelligence over Celebrity Worship and Pop Culture is probably a good place to start. By the way, I’m looking at three more books by Adler sitting on my TBR shelf, so I’m hoping to have something more positive to say about the others!
March 23, 2017
I've been posting some quotes as I went through this book, something I never do. I was compelled, however, by the depth and originality of Adler's arguments, along with the force of his authorial voice. This is a fellow who knows what he is about and refuses to mitigate his claims.
In this series of essays, covering a survey of his work in education from the late 1930's to the late 1980's, Adler argues for a system of education that focuses less on the memorization of facts and more on the development of democratic citizens capable of critical thought and communication. This is borne out of his doubt that students will remember many of the facts they're taught (as adults are similarly forgetful of specifics), but that they can learn how to learn. When given the option, educators should focus on that aspect because it is most likely to stick.
He goes in full bore on vocational training and electives in high school. Essentially, he sees them as an underestimation of children, telling them that they are incapable of more rigorous work. This is centered on his perpetual tenet that the best education for the best students is also the best education for all students. By separating students by apparent skill level, we hurt both sides in their perception of themselves.
There's too much great material in this volume to summarize. I am sure that he is off base in many respects, and I look forward to reading counter-arguments. But what cannot be denied is his focus on democratic education and, in the Socratic tradition, asking "why" to every educational standard.
In this series of essays, covering a survey of his work in education from the late 1930's to the late 1980's, Adler argues for a system of education that focuses less on the memorization of facts and more on the development of democratic citizens capable of critical thought and communication. This is borne out of his doubt that students will remember many of the facts they're taught (as adults are similarly forgetful of specifics), but that they can learn how to learn. When given the option, educators should focus on that aspect because it is most likely to stick.
He goes in full bore on vocational training and electives in high school. Essentially, he sees them as an underestimation of children, telling them that they are incapable of more rigorous work. This is centered on his perpetual tenet that the best education for the best students is also the best education for all students. By separating students by apparent skill level, we hurt both sides in their perception of themselves.
There's too much great material in this volume to summarize. I am sure that he is off base in many respects, and I look forward to reading counter-arguments. But what cannot be denied is his focus on democratic education and, in the Socratic tradition, asking "why" to every educational standard.
March 18, 2017
If we could manage to institute Adler's plan for education what a world we would live in. His dream is for every single child to receive the best education possible, no matter their natural abilities or inequities when coming to school. He is firm that education that is free and funded by the state to help each individual become the best he or she can be. He believes this is the core tenet for universal suffrage and would be the best solution for the complex problems confronting our modern age.
July 11, 2008
This book is a compilation of essays and speeches by the author. I did not read every essay. Of the ones I read I really liked #1 called This Prewar Generation which had some interesting ideas about WWII, #6 Education and the Pursuit of Happiness which I put on my blog and the Epilogue about reading great books. The author is very smart and uses some big words but it was enjoyable.
April 2, 2008
If you enjoy books by Adler then you'll really gain a lot from this one. This is a collection of lectures, articles and essays of his, all on the topic of eduction. This book still has a large effect on my life and what I still have left to do.
September 7, 2008
Good ideas, but his writing style is bit dry.
October 17, 2008
I highly recomend this book. Adler is an incredible thinker!
February 22, 2014
Worth rereading & discussing.
June 22, 2013
Mortimer Adler had a brilliant mind that is revealed in all of his books.
Want to read
August 13, 2016Read the essay entitled Liberal Schooling in the 20th Century.
http://www.theimaginativeconservative...
http://www.theimaginativeconservative...
June 28, 2014
I have read several books by Dr. Adler and like the others, this one will not disappoint.
October 27, 2016
Adler at his most Adlerian.
June 7, 2024
A COLLECTION OF ADLER’S EARLIER WRITINGS ON EDUCATION
Mortimer Jerome Adler (1902-2001) was an American philosopher, educator, and popular author, who worked at various times for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and his own Institute for Philosophical Research.
He wrote in the Prologue of this 1977 collection, “‘The Closing of the American Mind,’ by Allan Bloom, sold widely… [it] lamented the failure of our colleges to serve our democratic society, but paid little attention to the dismal deficiencies of basic schooling in the United States… his slight effort to propose a cure falls far short of what must be done to make our schools responsive to democracy’s needs and to enable our colleges to open the minds of their students to the truth… But for me the book’s most glaring defect is with regard to the undergraduate use of the great books over the last sixty years, and the more recent introduction of them into basic schooling by the Paideia program.” (Pg. xix)
He continues, “Those of us who teach the great books dialectically exert an influence on our students, but only so far as a good use of their minds is concerned. We never make disciples of them. [Leo] Strauss’s use of the doctrinal method resulted in students learning what the master thought about the work under consideration… it is totally inappropriate in liberal education at the college level or in our public schools.” (Pg. xxviii)
He adds, “A true great books program … is concerned primarily with the discussion of the great ideas and issues to be found in those books. It may, therefore, be asked why the works read should consist entirely of works written by Westerners… and not to authors who belong to one of the four or five major cultural traditions of the Far East. The answer is simply that the basic ideas and issues of out ONE Western intellectual tradition are NOT the basic ideas and issues in the FOUR or FIVE intellectual traditions of the Far East. In the distant future there may be a single, worldwide cultural community … but until that comes into existence, becoming a generally educated human being in the West involves understanding the basic ideas and issues that abound in the intellectual tradition to which one is heir …” (Pg. xxxiii)
In a 1939 essay, he asserts, “Not only are the major problems of education… soluble, but they have already been solved, for their solution does not depend on scientific research… it is demonstrably true that man’s well-being depends upon the regulation of his emotional life by reason… This discipline can be accomplished only by the formation of good habits of action and passion, and these good habits are the moral virtues… That the cardinal virtues are prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude is as certain a truth as any theorem in geometry…” (Pg. 41-42)
In the same essay, he states, “Our colleges produce … liberals in the worst sense of that word in which liberalism is suicidal because it is unable to give a rational defense of its sentimental protestations without contradicting itself… The college graduate is neither a liberal artist nor a liberated mind… it has made him into a ‘liberal,’ by which I mean that monomania for freedom in which the mind abhors discipline and does not acknowledge the authority of reason.” (Pg. 47)
In a 1941 essay, he recalls a January 1941 debate with Bertrand Russell, over “the question whether there are absolute and universal principles on which education should be founded… I proposed to prove the affirmative answer… I cannot tell you how disappointed and shocked I was by Lord Russell’s performance… shocked to find that a man, whom most people still suppose to be a great philosopher, should be willing to make such a fool of himself in public. Lord Russell made no attempt to demonstrate the falsity of the conclusion I had tried to prove to be true… He made no effort to understand the issue, nor did he hesitate to misquote my statements to gain a cheap advantage. I did not win that debate, but Lord Russell certainly lost it in the estimation of every critical member of that audience, whose intelligence he insulted by clowning on the platform instead of taking the whole matter seriously enough to try to argue.” (Pg. 54)
He suggests, “What conception of happiness must be read into the Declaration of Independence in order to make what it asserts true rather than false? If happiness consisted in each individual getting what he wanted, it would be impossible for any government to secure rights that enabled each individual to strive for happiness, since one individual’s wants may and often do conflict with the wants of others… Only on the ethical conception of happiness is it possible for the government of a society to attempt to provide all its human members with the external conditions … which they require in order to make good lives for themselves… The attainment of happiness, the achievement of a good life, is beyond the power of government to provide.” (Pg. 85)
He summarizes, “the purpose of schooling is not to produce educated men and women but rather to facilitate their becoming educated in the course of a lifetime, it serves that purpose well only if basic schooling for all tries to make the young learners … avid for learning … A choice in favor of undifferentiated basic schooling and in favor to the proposed reorganization of our educational institutions would, I submit, help us to school a whole people in a manner that would facilitate them becoming an educated people as a whole.” (Pg. 138)
Why study the great books? “First… because they are inexhaustible… the great books are infinitely rereadable. Second, the great books … are for adults in the sense that theirs is the level at which adults operate and think… Third, the great books deal with the basic problems … the basic issues that always confront mankind… If the great books are worth studying in school and college, as a condition of gaining skill in intellectual pursuits, they are certainly worth studying for the rest of one’s life.” (Pg. 223)
In a 1941 essay, he observes, “I do not know whether radio or television will ever be able to do anything genuinely educative. I am sure it serves the public in two ways by giving them amusement and by giving them information. It may even, as in the case of its very best ‘educational’ programs, stimulate some persons to do something about their minds by pursuing knowledge and wisdom in the only way possible---the hard way. But … I do not know… whether it can ever… present programs which are genuinely educative, as opposed to merely stimulating… so long as they persist in bringing everything and everybody down to the lowest level on which the largest audience can be reached, the educational programs offered on the air will remain what they are today---shams and delusions.” (Pg. 235-236)
He argues, “Vocational training, as it is now conducted, is worse than useless, but it will also become totally outmoded because ten years from now computers and robots will be doing most of the unskilled and semiskilled work. Computers will direct robots and will program other computers. The only kind of preparation for work that makes any sense is schooling in the liberal arts, the intellectual skills, the skills of judgment, the skills that help a child to learn how to learn whatever he or she needs to learn in life. That is the only proper preparation for the world of work. It is not preparation for a particular job…” (Pg. 287)
I was a bit disappointed in how many of these essays are from the 1940s, and even 1930s. (Consult his “The Paideia Proposal” and its related books for his more recent ideas on education.) And this “younger” Adler is a bit more “pugnacious” than his mellower later self. But this book will be of great interest to those studying Adler, and modern educational theory.
Mortimer Jerome Adler (1902-2001) was an American philosopher, educator, and popular author, who worked at various times for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and his own Institute for Philosophical Research.
He wrote in the Prologue of this 1977 collection, “‘The Closing of the American Mind,’ by Allan Bloom, sold widely… [it] lamented the failure of our colleges to serve our democratic society, but paid little attention to the dismal deficiencies of basic schooling in the United States… his slight effort to propose a cure falls far short of what must be done to make our schools responsive to democracy’s needs and to enable our colleges to open the minds of their students to the truth… But for me the book’s most glaring defect is with regard to the undergraduate use of the great books over the last sixty years, and the more recent introduction of them into basic schooling by the Paideia program.” (Pg. xix)
He continues, “Those of us who teach the great books dialectically exert an influence on our students, but only so far as a good use of their minds is concerned. We never make disciples of them. [Leo] Strauss’s use of the doctrinal method resulted in students learning what the master thought about the work under consideration… it is totally inappropriate in liberal education at the college level or in our public schools.” (Pg. xxviii)
He adds, “A true great books program … is concerned primarily with the discussion of the great ideas and issues to be found in those books. It may, therefore, be asked why the works read should consist entirely of works written by Westerners… and not to authors who belong to one of the four or five major cultural traditions of the Far East. The answer is simply that the basic ideas and issues of out ONE Western intellectual tradition are NOT the basic ideas and issues in the FOUR or FIVE intellectual traditions of the Far East. In the distant future there may be a single, worldwide cultural community … but until that comes into existence, becoming a generally educated human being in the West involves understanding the basic ideas and issues that abound in the intellectual tradition to which one is heir …” (Pg. xxxiii)
In a 1939 essay, he asserts, “Not only are the major problems of education… soluble, but they have already been solved, for their solution does not depend on scientific research… it is demonstrably true that man’s well-being depends upon the regulation of his emotional life by reason… This discipline can be accomplished only by the formation of good habits of action and passion, and these good habits are the moral virtues… That the cardinal virtues are prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude is as certain a truth as any theorem in geometry…” (Pg. 41-42)
In the same essay, he states, “Our colleges produce … liberals in the worst sense of that word in which liberalism is suicidal because it is unable to give a rational defense of its sentimental protestations without contradicting itself… The college graduate is neither a liberal artist nor a liberated mind… it has made him into a ‘liberal,’ by which I mean that monomania for freedom in which the mind abhors discipline and does not acknowledge the authority of reason.” (Pg. 47)
In a 1941 essay, he recalls a January 1941 debate with Bertrand Russell, over “the question whether there are absolute and universal principles on which education should be founded… I proposed to prove the affirmative answer… I cannot tell you how disappointed and shocked I was by Lord Russell’s performance… shocked to find that a man, whom most people still suppose to be a great philosopher, should be willing to make such a fool of himself in public. Lord Russell made no attempt to demonstrate the falsity of the conclusion I had tried to prove to be true… He made no effort to understand the issue, nor did he hesitate to misquote my statements to gain a cheap advantage. I did not win that debate, but Lord Russell certainly lost it in the estimation of every critical member of that audience, whose intelligence he insulted by clowning on the platform instead of taking the whole matter seriously enough to try to argue.” (Pg. 54)
He suggests, “What conception of happiness must be read into the Declaration of Independence in order to make what it asserts true rather than false? If happiness consisted in each individual getting what he wanted, it would be impossible for any government to secure rights that enabled each individual to strive for happiness, since one individual’s wants may and often do conflict with the wants of others… Only on the ethical conception of happiness is it possible for the government of a society to attempt to provide all its human members with the external conditions … which they require in order to make good lives for themselves… The attainment of happiness, the achievement of a good life, is beyond the power of government to provide.” (Pg. 85)
He summarizes, “the purpose of schooling is not to produce educated men and women but rather to facilitate their becoming educated in the course of a lifetime, it serves that purpose well only if basic schooling for all tries to make the young learners … avid for learning … A choice in favor of undifferentiated basic schooling and in favor to the proposed reorganization of our educational institutions would, I submit, help us to school a whole people in a manner that would facilitate them becoming an educated people as a whole.” (Pg. 138)
Why study the great books? “First… because they are inexhaustible… the great books are infinitely rereadable. Second, the great books … are for adults in the sense that theirs is the level at which adults operate and think… Third, the great books deal with the basic problems … the basic issues that always confront mankind… If the great books are worth studying in school and college, as a condition of gaining skill in intellectual pursuits, they are certainly worth studying for the rest of one’s life.” (Pg. 223)
In a 1941 essay, he observes, “I do not know whether radio or television will ever be able to do anything genuinely educative. I am sure it serves the public in two ways by giving them amusement and by giving them information. It may even, as in the case of its very best ‘educational’ programs, stimulate some persons to do something about their minds by pursuing knowledge and wisdom in the only way possible---the hard way. But … I do not know… whether it can ever… present programs which are genuinely educative, as opposed to merely stimulating… so long as they persist in bringing everything and everybody down to the lowest level on which the largest audience can be reached, the educational programs offered on the air will remain what they are today---shams and delusions.” (Pg. 235-236)
He argues, “Vocational training, as it is now conducted, is worse than useless, but it will also become totally outmoded because ten years from now computers and robots will be doing most of the unskilled and semiskilled work. Computers will direct robots and will program other computers. The only kind of preparation for work that makes any sense is schooling in the liberal arts, the intellectual skills, the skills of judgment, the skills that help a child to learn how to learn whatever he or she needs to learn in life. That is the only proper preparation for the world of work. It is not preparation for a particular job…” (Pg. 287)
I was a bit disappointed in how many of these essays are from the 1940s, and even 1930s. (Consult his “The Paideia Proposal” and its related books for his more recent ideas on education.) And this “younger” Adler is a bit more “pugnacious” than his mellower later self. But this book will be of great interest to those studying Adler, and modern educational theory.
February 13, 2025
Aspects are understandably quite dated, but there's interesting stuff here too.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews