@luisjgomez Don Henley 1989 at Irvine Amphitheater. It is one of my earliest memories at all. I remember him telling the audience to shut up and being confused.
English
Jake
13.9K posts
English
@Phil5514 @GrantrGregory @krus_chiki Yeah he went up with the Skanks and even had a Luis incident as a bit early on. Definitely makes him even cooler.
English
@GrantrGregory @krus_chiki He’s squeaky clean, but very good friends with some of the filthiest comics working. Which is very funny.
English
@GrepaKeppa @KillaKreww Like most shitlibs, she believes blacks are too dumb to know how they should feel or what they should think
English
@KillaKreww Hilarious, the dawgs just dropped a new pod with Sheryl Underwood while Chelsea is here complaining on her behalf 😂😂🏌🏻♂️
English
Chelsea Handler goes OFF on Tony Hinchcliffe & Shane Gillis for making “racist” jokes at the Kevin Hart Roast and claims White people should NOT be joking about Black people in that kind of way since its equivalent to joking about r-pe 😳
“I knew enough about Tony & Shane… They’re racists, they’re bigots, they’re sexist… I don’t find those jokes funny. L-nching Black people is not a joke. It’s worse than r-pe… Them making fun of Sherryl Underwood’s dead husband who comitted s—cide is gross… I wasn’t fine with that. There was so much disgustingness, I knew it was gonna be a gross vibe.”
English
@Le_Master @MartinCothran My point was, the CCE movement is claiming to replicate education from the classical era, but at least in the Quad. it most certainly is not….but saying that it is. …few things flourish when their underlying structure is a fiction. There’s the problem.
English
All of the arts can also be considered AS sciences (particularly the quantitative ones, like geometry), but as liberal ARTS, they are considered primarily as arts. Plato notably considers geometry primarily as a science.
Jake@Le_Master
Right they are arts in respect to their role as being teachable and formative to a man. Rational disciplines is a good way to consider them. But people need to also understand the four quantitative arts are indeed sciences. Importantly so because it is through what makes them sciences that the intellect is led to higher philosophy and theology.
English
@LiveOakPirate @MartinCothran This modern classical education movement literature is all ahistorical and nonsensical. I’m not interested in discussing them. I’m only interested in the actual classical education tradition that can be accurately and historically discussed.
English
@Le_Master @MartinCothran Take a look at this. I think you can find the pdf online. ….so, I don’t think it’s very well written, and after the chapters on the Trivium…the Quadrivium chapters are not well done (which was my original point) but it is the CC ed “go to”
English
@LiveOakPirate @MartinCothran That LLM summary is wrong. Medicine is a craft. Techne. Politics was practical and concerned with practical wisdom. Phronesis. These are very different from science: episteme
English
@Le_Master @MartinCothran In the classical world, which is the topic, they were considered sciences.
English
@LiveOakPirate @MartinCothran Medicine and politics aren’t sciences. Astronomy and music are by necessity which means not subject to time.
English
@MartinCothran In the modern world, Astronomy and music cannot reasonably be considered liberal arts. They are no longer used in the sciences of medicine, politics, etc. if we are going by the classical definition.
We need to be intellectually honest.
English
Exactly right. And the final cause was always ascension through philosophy and finally theology. Those who formed, taught, and wrote within the actual historical education spoke of its purpose. It goes back to Plato in a lot of ways, but as you know it was Martianus Capella in antiquity in his De nuptiis where the arts were made canon. The arts are shown as attendants who escort philology upward to heaven.
From then on you see them described similarly by all those who stress them. Clement and Origen call them handmaidens and preparation for higher wisdom in Jesus. Augustine, Nicomachus, Clement of Alexandria, Isidore, Boethius, Aquinas, Hugh of St Victor, Alexander of Aphrodisias, (to name only a few) - all speaking similarly. Cassiodorus spent a good part of his life writing the Institutiones where he provides an entire study of the seven liberal arts to prepare for a life of divine studies. He says the arts lead up to the stars.
This purpose of reaching true theology was spoken of by Christians and pagans alike.
English
Well, properly speaking, it couldn't really be the final cause, at least early on, since the "great books" didn't exist. There were just books, some of which we have now deemed "great". But they were the "paths to the secrets of wisdom," mostly by preparing us to read what we now call the great books.
Hieronymus@Hierony49098392
@MartinCothran I don’t think that reading the great books is the final cause of the liberal arts.
English
@MartinCothran To which I agreed if you recall. I added that about the quadrivium also being sciences as clarification, not to dispute.
English
@Le_Master I'm sympathetic to your position when it comes to the quadrivium, and, again, any art can be looked at in two different ways. But, still, if you are talking about even geometry AS A LIBERAL ART, it, as that label clearly suggests, is being considered primarily as an art.
English
Right they are arts in respect to their role as being teachable and formative to a man. Rational disciplines is a good way to consider them. But people need to also understand the four quantitative arts are indeed sciences. Importantly so because it is through what makes them sciences that the intellect is led to higher philosophy and theology.
English
Right. This is why the liberal arts are called "arts" and not "sciences".
Mark Rhodes@MarkRhodes11
@MartinCothran The great jazz guitarist Barney Kassel said, “Playing scales is like a boxer skipping rope or punching a bag. It's not the thing in itself; it's preparatory to the activity." In this sense, learning grammar, rhetoric, and logic are prepatory to encountering great ideas.
English
Not arguing that whatsoever. And I don’t even really disagree with you. I often say one of my biggest criticisms of the Great Books advocates is that they nearly all believe they can bypass the classical liberal arts before their stated aims of reading the Great Books.
But you’ve moved to what is essential to a Great Books education, rather than what is essential for classical education. My post is regarding the latter and so is Brian’s to which you originally responded.
English
The liberal arts are preparatory in that they are the efficient cause of the reading great books (or any books for that matter). You are arguing that if one thing is not the final cause (telos) of another thing, it cannot therefore be its efficient cause. This does not follow.
Jake@Le_Master
Simply that the liberal arts didn’t and don’t exist as a preparatory device for the great books. It may be a consequence of the study of them but it’s not their telos or any defining part of their essence except in a contrived sense. I say that because the canonical texts that students were expected to gain a mastery of in the historic education in question are “great books.” But that is obviously not what is being said here since the universal doesn’t convert.
English
Simply that the liberal arts didn’t and don’t exist as a preparatory device for the great books. It may be a consequence of the study of them but it’s not their telos or any defining part of their essence except in a contrived sense.
I say that because the canonical texts that students were expected to gain a mastery of in the historic education in question are “great books.” But that is obviously not what is being said here since the universal doesn’t convert.
English
I take this to be saying that classical education spends more time preparing students to read great books than in actually reading them, which is certainly and necessarily the case.
Brian Kemple@realbriankemple
The revival of classical education cannot be reduced to “read the Great Books.” That is a necessary part; but it is neither sufficient nor the place for education to start. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Dante, Aquinas, Shakespeare, and Dostoevsky are not magical talismans. Their greatness does not automatically transfer itself to the reader. One might read any great author—and miss almost everything they are truly saying, because one has not been educated to read them well. Do we still today possess the arts by which these texts can be truly read? Reading well is not passive reception but an act and even a habit of inquiring. It requires a myriad of cognitive activities, schooled in a tradition of grammar, logic, rhetoric, commentary, disputation, and teaching. Without these, even the greatest books can become little more than raw material for private opinion, cultural signaling, or—much oftener—ideological appropriation. Contemporary habits of reading are increasingly formed by skimming, excerpting, reacting, searching, and prompting or outsourcing to AI and to podcasts. Even if we do read these books, today, it is often under habits that make us incapable of truly understanding them. Does the renewal of education require more than recovering a canon? Indeed—it requires recovering the art of reading itself. Join us in this conversation.
English
@saint_witch_ Agamemnon is a character - not a tragedy within the trilogy
English
Probability encompasses all logic and all uncertainty: logic is a subset of probability.
English
@CLT_Exam @JeremyTate41 That education 100 years ago was deep within the decline—toward the end in fact. It’s not something to hold in high regard.
English
This was considered a basic education 100 years ago:
— Latin grammar
— Ancient history
— Formal logic
— Homer
— Plato
— Virgil
— Shakespeare
Today, much of this would be considered too difficult, too impractical, or simply unnecessary.
What changed?
English
@glyphikon He proved no such thing. Unless you’re using “scientific” in some nonsensical modern use.
English
In contrast to Gödel's own notoriously mystical Platonic views of mathematics, Gödel's own work essentially proved that mathematics isn't scientific.
In other words, it can only ever serve as useful epistemic heuristics and can never ever be considered adequate enough to serve as the ontological basis of any kind of science.
Unfortunately, even to this day, a lot of mathematicians, physicists, and virtually all neoclassical economists still have yet to get the memo about all this.
Quanta Magazine@QuantaMagazine
At age 25, Kurt Gödel proved there can never be a mathematical “theory of everything.” In this week’s Qualia column, @nattyover asks experts how his ideas changed the course of humanity’s unending search for truth. quantamagazine.org/what-do-godels…
English
It’s only necessary in that the canonical texts of classical education are lower case great books. But most of what constitutes the Great Books is unrelated to receiving a classical education. The writings of Shakespeare and Dostoevsky for example have no part in classical education.
But either way for the kind of study the Great Books crowd advocates for, the mastery of the classical liberal arts should be necessary.
English
The revival of classical education cannot be reduced to “read the Great Books.”
That is a necessary part; but it is neither sufficient nor the place for education to start. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Dante, Aquinas, Shakespeare, and Dostoevsky are not magical talismans. Their greatness does not automatically transfer itself to the reader. One might read any great author—and miss almost everything they are truly saying, because one has not been educated to read them well.
Do we still today possess the arts by which these texts can be truly read?
Reading well is not passive reception but an act and even a habit of inquiring. It requires a myriad of cognitive activities, schooled in a tradition of grammar, logic, rhetoric, commentary, disputation, and teaching. Without these, even the greatest books can become little more than raw material for private opinion, cultural signaling, or—much oftener—ideological appropriation.
Contemporary habits of reading are increasingly formed by skimming, excerpting, reacting, searching, and prompting or outsourcing to AI and to podcasts. Even if we do read these books, today, it is often under habits that make us incapable of truly understanding them.
Does the renewal of education require more than recovering a canon? Indeed—it requires recovering the art of reading itself. Join us in this conversation.
Lyceum Institute@LyceumInstitute
On Reading the Great Books « A Philosophical Happy Hour inquiring after the merits of reading the Great Books and understanding the environment of the reader » The recovery of classical education, much in vogue today, has often been identified with the recovery of the Great Books. This is understandable: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Boethius, Dante, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Newman, Dostoevsky, and others do not contain mere history or a “tradition of ideas”. They present perennial questions and profound depths of insight concerning being and truth, life and death, the human good, the soul, society, God, language, beauty, and purpose. Reading them seriously aspires to heights, contrary to the shallowness, distraction, and numbness which dominates contemporary culture. But this raises a further question: is reading the Great Books enough? Read more at the link: lyceum.institute/news-and-annou…
English