One of the advantages of a national system of education is the kind of public debate that ensues when 'reforms' to the existing system are proposed. The current ministry of education in France has proposed that teaching history and geography in the last two years of the lycees, devoted to preparation for the famous bac which enables students to enter universities, be eliminated for those in the technical/scientific specialization. The protests, led by Alain Finkelkraut, have aroused the usual French passion for abstract debate.
In its simplest form, the question is, do scientists need these subjects for their professional goals, or would they be better off with more science and less history and geography? We have no comparable debate here: first because the curricula are determined locally by professional 'educationalists', and second because we have long ago eliminated geography in our school systems, and basically scant history. The result has been a nation with only the vaguest notion of geography in the broad sense -- that is, not merely where things are located but of the consequences of such locations. As mathematics and music are languages, almost all human activity involves mapping, from the templates of word-processing to the geography of the human mind.
I was wont to give my students at Boston University a blank map of the world. Three out of twenty managed to place France off the coast of Japan. That would not have happened thirty or forty years ago. Similarly, my eighth grade class in Balboa, California, in 1939 used the same European history textbook as is still used, only now at the Junior/Senior level at university: a net loss of seven years.
I don't think scientists need to know history and geography to be better scientists; I believe they need to know both in order to be better people. We need far more knowledge of the past in order to act prudently in the present and for the future; and our lack of knowledge of how geography and mapping work in our minds in relating one element to another is like not knowing how to co-ordinate hand and eye in hitting a ball.
Posts
Lahti
7 months ago
This topic - also other - are important. But this time my attention was focused mainly into last part - sorry.
ReplyDeleteGeography is not so important, but the mainlines of history are. History is a funny thing. If we don´t listen to it, it will start to punish us by repeating itself. Se history is important thing. Also it should make us more humble. Somehow we must see, that we just need something larger and bigger that any man can ever create - as a leader. Many religions today are flawed, because thay have passed those main points of original christianity. Today we have not pure truth, we have just opinions. Everyone can choose they own way to worship to anyone - and even decide when, how and which way. But is this is a matter of seeking true God, it is questionable, that can we just select the points and beliefs - and leave rest them off? In fact, this way of thinking means, that we will decide, what God wants and demands. This means also, that we are in upper level than him. And this point of view is the mainpoint of christianity upside down. And what it is? Paganism? No, in fact. In fact it is quite close of satanism. It means - by the even wikipedia - way of thinking that human being is most higher creature in this world. Someone has said that there´s no other sin that we just keep us like as God. Paganism thinks that highest creature is nature, satanism that it is human being - stupid idea, which is not true - everyone who knows what we are and what we are not, knows this.
But everyone knows that christian basic virtues, like love, trutness, humbleness, caring, respect etc. are the real truth.
Couldn't agree more with this post. Oppenheimer thought of Hindu mysticism when the bomb first exploded; the twenty-first century scientist will likely be thinking of a Michael Bays movie at the moment of truth, instead... It would have been nice to have an electorate of people who could locate Iraq and Afghanistan in both 2000 and 2004. But Santayana's words sure do hold true - we are simply doomed to repeat history. (Especially if don't remember that history to begin with).
ReplyDeleteTo reply to Mr. Stahstin
ReplyDeleteI have long wondered about that Santayana statement, which involves an abdication of human agency and free will. NOT to know history will not keep you from repeating it; knowing history will not necessarily keep you from repeating it. Surely the matter to reflect on is what kind of history (i.e. historical memory) will give you an informed choice among the many courses of action available to you, not just THEN but now. I would suggest that the right kind of history is that which asks the greatest number of relevant questions. Ask your grandfather which your mother was so often moody and you may learn why you are. We are build on plates of memory; history is always relevant. Which is precisely why, when we say 'He made history' about some feat, the feat lies in your remembering what he did, not in his doing so.
Well, good points again. This kind of discussion is very intresting & creative.
ReplyDeleteKeith, i believe there´s one point that we must see, and it is this;
Mankind´s history will repeat itself because of basic rule of social ordering & gathering - also called as politics - in higher level. Now, as we all know, we - people - are very easily corrupted ones. Someone famous Russian writer told once, that power will corrupt, and total total power will corrupt totally. This is true, if we just seek into history. Every level of goverments and cultures has been destroyed by the time... or even not by the time. What is the final reason of mankind´s total failure? Platon said once, that if we don´t have pure and 100% same morality, floor will fall from under everything.
From my - and many other thinkers - point of view, it is very important point to realize, that reason of all this insanity, violence, decadence and nonsense is growing just because values are getting down. Atheism is very good example. Why? Because if we just don´t think that we must be responsibility for any upper level, we can finally keep anything as value. Who cares? I believe you see my point?
Point well made, prof. But the context in which I've always placed the Santayana maxim is one of utter... not pessimism, but realism. (I think I'm bringing 21st century readings onto it, admittedly). Genocide continues at this moment, despite the Nuremberg trials and our enlightened United Nations, and genocide of the Christians was in full swing prior to Constantine; in the same vein, I cover courts for a rural New Jersey newspaper, where we have 1.5 murders per year. (I'm on a break right now from a trial where a woman is accused of starving her children because it was God's direction to do so). I value Durkheim's teachings on these statistical probabilities; even one who learns from history will be replaced by someone who forgets it. I fully agree in bettering ourselves as a species by enlightenment and analyzing our genesis. I just don't think it's possible...?
ReplyDelete