A Fundamentalist Education

All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore I share my humanity and mortality with Socrates

All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore I share my humanity and mortality with Socrates

The principles of a liberal education are actually rather simple. Pupils will encounter the greatest minds of the past, and from this encounter they will gain the insights to seek after truth and goodness for themselves. Liberal education equips pupils to ask the most fundamental questions: ‘What is man?’, ‘What is the good life?’, ‘What is the good society?’

The principles are indeed simple, but in practice it is very difficult to offer or to a receive a liberal education in twenty-first century Britain. Why is that?

Firstly, we are cut off from the past by a mistaken idea of relevance. Teachers are reluctant to foist ancient material on pupils, thinking that they will reject it as unconnected to their lives. But this lack of connection is only at the most superficial level. Relevance properly understood transcends the immediate concerns of the present. The greatest thinkers are always relevant, because they address the most important human questions, the questions which are of deep relevance to every human being: questions about significance and purpose in the face of mortality, for example. Last time I read the newspaper, death had not yet been abolished, and we are still just as mortal as Socrates.

The second key barrier to a liberal education is relativism. If there is no truth about the human condition, then we cannot expect to benefit at the deepest level from reading serious books, so why put forth the effort?

E D Hirsch is right to point out that exposure to a generous sample of great writers is vital to build cultural literacy, and allow our pupils to gain admission to the civilised conversation of our society. He is right that the ability to read effectively depends upon a good store of core knowledge built up through familiarity with the great legends and myths which have shaped Western society. His arguments are compelling from the point of view of social justice, as they must be accepted if we are to offer equal chances to those from homes that lack cultural capital.

E D Hirsch is right, but his arguments will not be enough to revive liberal education. The principles of core knowledge are attractive partly because they neatly sidestep the philosophical questions. They put to one side the question of whether we will find truth in the great writers of the past, and offer a pragmatic reason for studying them regardless.

The philosophical neutrality of Hirsch’s arguments are both their strength and their weakness. It is certainly eminently sensible and rational to propose the study of core knowledge in order to improve cultural literacy and open up the life prospects for poorer pupils, but is it really exciting, in the way that the discovery of truth is exciting? True liberal education appeals to the eager desire for truth that is in every child. It is the eros of the mind, yearning for consummation. There is all the difference in the world between proposing to study something because it is useful, and proposing to study something because it is true.

The search for truth is what makes us take books seriously. Every time we open one, we might discover something that will change our life. Mere entertainment or practical utility are pale shadows in comparison to the thrill of discovering the truth, and the liberation it brings.

But in the current philosophical climate, a fundamentalist Christian’s education is more liberal than the pupil in the most effective of core knowledge schools. Our modern intellectuals sneer at Bible thumping Baptists, but in fact, the Bible believer has learned the principle that old books should be taken seriously, something that has long been forgotten in university humanities departments. A fundamentalist Christian grows up being exposed to a tradition of serious writing from the past, and reads that serious writing in order to discover truth and apply it to his life. Can our schools offer anything comparable in seriousness and depth? No: they are incapable of doing so, unless they reexamine their philosophical basis.


3 thoughts on “A Fundamentalist Education

  1. “Mere entertainment or practical utility………..”
    I’m with you on the entertainment. My local library is about 99% fiction (by my estimate). The small number of non-fiction books includes astrology, de-tox programs, dodgy “religions” and all sorts of other new-age nonsense, with the odd (very odd) book on photography, gardening and such things.
    I notice that TV is much the same: mindless nonsense with a rare nod to the real world. So is the internet. Words like “superficial”, “light” and “consignment of geriatric shoe manufacturers” spring to mind. There is gold in there, but like the metal it is rare and hard to find.
    I have learned a great deal about the nature of people, governments and power (both mechanical and political) from what I regard as proper non-fiction (i.e. written by an intelligent and well-informed adult for the benefit of a presumably intelligent reader). I am depressed to see how many of them were bought from public libraries 10-20 years ago. For pennies. I think that explains a lot.
    It seems that the education system has adopted the Alexander Pope credo that the (only) proper study of mankind is man. (Sorry, but I couldn’t help adding the “only”).
    I’d be happy if my charges (mostly 15 years old) read any books at all. I don’t believe that any of them have ever read a decent book from cover to cover. I’d settle for Harry Potter. Most of them have some kind of “learning difficulty” and I get the impression that this has been used as an excuse not to bother trying to teach them anything.

    As to the philosophical basis of the education system, I think you have got it spot on. Relativism plus critical analysis equals Solipism. And then there is no point in anything, so why bother.
    I recal reading that Alan Sokal had invited some of his “philosophical” friends to test their assertion that the rules of Physics are a social contruct by the simple expedient of stepping out of his front room window. On the 40th floor. Strangely, not one of them did.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, non fiction is much neglected. E D Hirsch points this out, noting that it used to be a significant proportion of the eclectic readers that were used in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I think the neglect of non fiction is another thing which puts boys off reading as well. They’d rather read about facts than fairies. Good historical fiction can also get them interested.


Thoughtful and reasonable discussion is always welcome.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s