Designer babies are here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, people don't start at the same position. Income and family situation are among the things that immediately come into play: children whose parents display an interest in their education tend to do better when they first start school.

As do students without a disability, etc, etc.

But day 1 at kindergarten, everyone starts at 0. That is what is meant by equality of opportunity.

[Q Classic]

First off, 'modern' is irrelevant. I want to be able to read the source texts rather then relying on the interpretation of folks several hundred years ago.

In that case, let's also teach Aramaic and Ancient Hebrew in school. Let's also teach Old and Middle Chinese, on top of Old English, Old High German, and Old Church Slavonic.

I'm not arguing against reading the original source texts in their native language. I'm saying that with everything that we've decided we must teach kids (well, to the test) by a certain age, some trade-offs have to be made--and in some ways, it makes sense. Ancient Greek is less useful than Calculus is in day to day life (I only recently learned that not everyone was taught Calculus in High School), but it's critical at the collegiate level for studying the Western Classics--which is where it should be taught, I think.

It does no good to try to teach dead languages to students unwilling to learn, while it's rewarding to teach the academically-minded who do want to learn them.

If the folks of today wish to contribute as folks did in the past, then we have to be able to go back and analyse the source documents.

Yes. Strangely enough, most scientific principles that contribute the most these days that were written in the past? Not in Latin or Greek.

Secondly, when the core of our philosophy and history texts are written in one or the other, they are hardly irrelevant. English has only been predominant for 150 years, any further back, and we have to know latin or greek.

And Chinese, actually. And Arabic. And Sanskrit. And Aramaic. There's a reason why there's a vibrant market for researchers who translate these texts and debate over them.

Most folks don't have a clue who Ovid is, let alone being able to actually read the text.

I don't see how progressing in ignorance is a triumph of modern education.

I'm not saying it is. On the other hand, I'm saying that simply knowing who Ovid is and knowing he wrote some book is a lot less useful than actually knowing what he wrote in the Metamorphoses.

Just because you know a bunch of trivia (i.e., how most history is taught) doesn't mean you understand what the historical trends meant.

Just because you know who Ovid, or Homer, or Aristophenes were doesn't mean you understood the context in which they were writing, what they were saying, and why.

[Q Classic]

As do students without a disability, etc, etc.

But day 1 at kindergarten, everyone starts at 0. That is what is meant by equality of opportunity.

Did you not read what I wrote?
Sorry, stupid question, you didn't.

On day 1 at kindergarten, not everyone starts at 0.

My brother and I had a huge advantage over most other kids. We started earlier, our mother was a Montessori teacher who'd started teaching us since birth and restricted our television to PBS and Tom Brokaw if we were good, and Jeopardy! as a special treat. That translated to above average scores and the "gifted" label until high school (when my brother went off the rails and decided to become a jock) or college (when I went to a prestigious university and found out that I'm really not that bright and went insane as a result).

Conversely, some children my mom once taught came from broken families where they were fed nothing but daytime television until they were dropped off at kindergarten, their parents treating it as a day care more than anything~

In other words, we do not all start at 0.

[Ben Kenobi]

That is different from having institutional barriers, where you start from behind the start line.

It's no different from track. Some folks are faster then others. Some folks have the benefit of a better diet, or better training.

That doesn't make the race unfair.

[Q Classic]

That is different from having institutional barriers, where you start from behind the start line.

It's no different from track. Some folks are faster then others. Some folks have the benefit of a better diet, or better training.

That doesn't make the race unfair.

Actually, it's not. Not all schools are equal.

Thus, not everyone starts at 0 when they enter kindergarten.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not arguing against reading the original source texts in their native language. I'm saying that with everything that we've decided we must teach kids (well, to the test) by a certain age, some trade-offs have to be made--and in some ways, it makes sense.

Much of English is derived from Latin. Latin also opens up other doors to French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. It's valuable if you are trying to learn other languages, or if you are wanting to have a better understanding of classical history and literature.

Ancient Greek is less useful than Calculus is in day to day life (I only recently learned that not everyone was taught Calculus in High School), but it's critical at the collegiate level for studying the Western Classics--which is where it should be taught, I think.

It's not really offered unless it's at the graduate level. I'd like to see at least a few courses as a requirement for any history or english majors at the university level.

It does no good to try to teach dead languages to students unwilling to learn, while it's rewarding to teach the academically-minded who do want to learn them.

They aren't really dead languages. Unless history is a dead discipline.

Yes. Strangely enough, most scientific principles that contribute the most these days that were written in the past? Not in Latin or Greek.

No, but I'm talking more about history. Digging through the archives and all.

I'm not saying it is. On the other hand, I'm saying that simply knowing who Ovid is and knowing he wrote some book is a lot less useful than actually knowing what he wrote in the Metamorphoses.

Just because you know a bunch of trivia (i.e., how most history is taught) doesn't mean you understand what the historical trends meant.

Just because you know who Ovid, or Homer, or Aristophenes were doesn't mean you understood the context in which they were writing, what they were saying, and why.

No argument from me.

[Agathon]

In that case, let's also teach Aramaic and Ancient Hebrew in school. Let's also teach Old and Middle Chinese, on top of Old English, Old High German, and Old Church Slavonic.

Why? Those are vulgar languages.

Greek and Latin are the feeder languages for the rational, scientific view of the world. Almost all of our technical language is Greek or Latin, as well as almost all our academic words and words pertaining to rationality.

The main point of studying Greek and Latin is not really to get people to read texts in those languages, but to expand their conception of the possibilities of language. Both Greek and Latin are much more complex languages than English is - that's one reason our most important words are Greek or Latin words. Classical languages are not taught like conversational French. They are taught in a very precise way that resembles calculus. This, along with the increased awareness of meaning that comes from understanding the feeder languages for Western culture, provides a person with such an education a much deeper facility with language.

It's called "being literate". That is what our modern culture lacks and what educated people of the 19th century had. Ben is right about that. They didn't have the technical facility that modern people have, but our price for that focus has been meaning-impoverishment and an inability to discuss matters of politics and ethics in anything but the most shallow terms. In some ways, we are the most advanced people who ever lived. In other ways, we aren't much better off than mediaeval pig farmers.

[Agathon]

Yes. Strangely enough, most scientific principles that contribute the most these days that were written in the past? Not in Latin or Greek.

Almost all our scientific language is Latin or Greek. The very phrase "scientific principle" is Latin. This is not an accident (Latin). The hyper-rational (again a Greek word and a Latin word) consciousness that pervades the Western way of looking at the world originates in the Greeks. Other cultures do not have it. A language reflects a way of interpreting the world. We still use Greek and Latin words to interpret the most important features of the world because we inherited their way of looking at it.

As you can see, all the important words in the preceding sentence originate from classical languages.

[Q Classic]

Much of English is derived from Latin. Latin also opens up other doors to French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. It's valuable if you are trying to learn other languages, or if you are wanting to have a better understanding of classical history and literature.

It's valuable, but by no means a requirement. Just like how knowing how a computer works below the compiler level is useful when writing software, but not exactly a requirement.

Anyway, the ancestry of English is actually Germanic, not Latin; much of the vocabulary is Latin-derived, yes, but that's a function of history.

Note that I've never argued against learning it--I simply said that its relevance in general education has lessened somewhat, but it still has its place at higher levels of education.

It's not really offered unless it's at the graduate level. I'd like to see at least a few courses as a requirement for any history or english majors at the university level.

http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/pdf_09/CLAS.pdf

Greek and Latin required for the BA for the study of Classics and Classical Civilization.

http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/pdf_09/ECLT.pdf

Early Christian Literature requires two years' study of Attic Greek.
Undergraduate level, again.

If you're talking about English Lit, though, it's not required, per se, but then again, given the focus of the literature being mostly after the 1700s...

http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/pdf_09/ENGL.pdf

Stop making **** up.

They aren't really dead languages. Unless history is a dead discipline.

They are. I elucidate what "dead language" means in the other thread.

No, but I'm talking more about history. Digging through the archives and all.

Now that you've realized your original statement is untenable, you're narrowing your field. That's acceptable, I suppose.

Then again, I never made an argument against that.

No argument from me.

No, not really, but you also seem to be supporting that type of education.

[Q Classic]

Why? Those are vulgar languages.

Depends on the context. The Analects were not written in Latin or Greek. Indeed, such translations would have been "vulgar".

The Ramayana was written in Sanskrit.

The books of Daniel and Ezra were written in Aramaic, as was the Talmud.

Depending on your field of a "vulgar" language changes quite a bit.

The main point of studying Greek and Latin is not really to get people to read texts in those languages, but to expand their conception of the possibilities of language. Both Greek and Latin are much more complex languages than English is - that's one reason our most important words are Greek or Latin words.

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree there. The linguist in me finds such arguments for organically developed languages impossibly fraught with bias. As you're a a student of Western philosophy, it's no surprise you'd say that Greek and Latin are "more complex".

Classical languages are not taught like conversational French. They are taught in a very precise way that resembles calculus.

Yes. Part of the reason is because Classical languages are no longer evolving.

This, along with the increased awareness of meaning that comes from understanding the feeder languages for Western culture, provides a person with such an education a much deeper facility with language.

I'm pretty certain just a heightened education in etymology could provide the same thing, as well as teaching them alternative languages at earlier ages, particularly ones that aren't related to their native tongue.

It's called "being literate".

Yes, but the effort and cost of being literate isn't willing to be borne out by most people. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn, and to be honest, I have a hard time imagining most frat boys wanting to understand the subtleties of language, regardless of whether it's Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, or Ancient Chinese.

That is what our modern culture lacks and what educated people of the 19th century had.

I agree here, to a limit. Many educated people today have that same knowledge.

Mass education, as it's done today, doesn't entail the same thing as a "classical" education--and our culture shows it. That said, I don't think you can have mass classical education. There will always be people who have no desire to grasp the meaning of the Classics, and no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to teach them.

They didn't have the technical facility that modern people have, but our price for that focus has been meaning-impoverishment and an inability to discuss matters of politics and ethics in anything but the most shallow terms. In some ways, we are the most advanced people who ever lived. In other ways, we aren't much better off than mediaeval pig farmers.

This isn't the fault of lowered educational standards. It's human nature.

[Q Classic]

Almost all our scientific language is Latin or Greek. The very phrase "scientific principle" is Latin. This is not an accident (Latin). The hyper-rational (again a Greek word and a Latin word) consciousness that pervades the Western way of looking at the world originates in the Greeks. Other cultures do not have it. A language reflects a way of interpreting the world. We still use Greek and Latin words to interpret the most important features of the world because we inherited their way of looking at it.

As you can see, all the important words in the preceding sentence originate from classical languages.

The reason our scientific language is rooted in Latin and Greek was because when modern science developed, a lot of the learned people working in it knew that Latin or Greek were the lingua fraca for academics.

As far as "scientific principle", it's not Latin, but Latin-derived. Small difference. Additionally, that's what it is in English; I doubt that's what it is in German, given that "science" is "Wissenschaft" (root: "knowledge"), or Korean, where "science" is "gwahak".

Indeed, science still uses a lot of words with Greek and Latin roots, but with English having become the lingua fraca, it's more up to the researcher's preferences; you'll note that subatomic particles have their roots running the gamut from your favorite languages (proton) to English whimsy (quark).

[Agathon]

Depends on the context. The Analects were not written in Latin or Greek. Indeed, such translations would have been "vulgar".

The Ramayana was written in Sanskrit.

The books of Daniel and Ezra were written in Aramaic, as was the Talmud.

Depending on your field of a "vulgar" language changes quite a bit.

None of those books demonstrate the conceptual acuity inherent in Greek and Latin literature. That's one of the reasons the West crushed their cultures.

Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree there. The linguist in me finds such arguments for organically developed languages impossibly fraught with bias. As you're a a student of Western philosophy, it's no surprise you'd say that Greek and Latin are "more complex".

More complex than English. Certainly.

I'm pretty certain just a heightened education in etymology could provide the same thing, as well as teaching them alternative languages at earlier ages, particularly ones that aren't related to their native tongue.

No. Because a language expresses a way of living and thinking.

Yes, but the effort and cost of being literate isn't willing to be borne out by most people. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn, and to be honest, I have a hard time imagining most frat boys wanting to understand the subtleties of language, regardless of whether it's Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, or Ancient Chinese.

Who cares what most people think? If we made that our standard, then there would be a pub on every corner and a gallows opposite.

I agree here, to a limit. Many educated people today have that same knowledge.

No they don't.

Mass education, as it's done today, doesn't entail the same thing as a "classical" education--and our culture shows it. That said, I don't think you can have mass classical education. There will always be people who have no desire to grasp the meaning of the Classics, and no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to teach them.

If you could make the British upper class of the 19th century learn them, you can make anyone learn them. School isn't about what you want, it is what the teachers make you do.

[Theben]

Again, more good and bad that can come from science. Do we ignore all the good because of possible bad?
Where would the human race be if this was always the decision?

I like to point out the possible shortcomings b/c I know this will happen, barring the end of civilization. Once the tech is there, it'll be used. There isn't much point to arguing why we should.

[Agathon]

The reason our scientific language is rooted in Latin and Greek was because when modern science developed, a lot of the learned people working in it knew that Latin or Greek were the lingua fraca for academics.

Latin and Greek became the languages for these things because other languages did not have the conceptual resources of those languages. That's why they were the lingua franca in the first place. Scientific thinking was invented long before modern science, and is characteristically Greek. Modern science differs from ancient science to a much lesser degree than ancient science differs from non-scientific pre-rational cultures. You would know this if you studied the origins of our way of thinking. All you want to do is maximize differences to suit your agenda, rather than basing them on the facts.

A language is a testament to a form of life. If you don't understand that, then you don't have much to say.

I'm sorry if you feel some sort of cultural inferiority complex because of this, but that's just silly. Sure, I have a copy of Mencius on my table, and he is a good guy and all that, but he isn't doing what Aristotle is.

[Q Classic]

None of those books demonstrate the conceptual acuity inherent in Greek and Latin literature. That's one of the reasons the West crushed their cultures.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it was their Agricultural and Industrial Revolution.

More complex than English. Certainly.

You missed my point.

No. Because a language expresses a way of living and thinking.

Yes and no. Not to the extent the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggested, but alternative languages can help make other viewpoints more accessible.

Who cares what most people think? If we made that our standard, then there would be a pub on every corner and a gallows opposite.

So you're suggesting we force the same "classical" education on everyone, regardless of whether they have the wherewithal to comprehend what they're being taught?

You'd have better luck pushing a mule off a cliff, or pissing uphill. You simply cannot teach people who do not wish to learn--and if they're hoisted by their petard due to ignorance, then it's their fault, not yours.

No they don't.

We can go all day on that. I'm going to choose to defend my statement by saying that "many", which has a Germanic (not Latin, not Greek) root, doesn't specify any real quantity outside of "more than a few, which is commonly accepted to be capped at maybe three to five, more than several, which seems to be capped at around 10 or so, but less than 50% +1, which would then qualify for 'most' status".

I'm willing to bet that there are at least 10 educated people in America who have the same or more "education" as you narrowly define it as 19th century Brits.

See, there's some complexity and nuance in English after all!

If you could make the British upper class of the 19th century learn them, you can make anyone learn them. School isn't about what you want, it is what the teachers make you do.

If the majority of the British upper class of the 19th century truly understood what they'd been taught, I have a feeling that many of their mistakes could have been avoided.

Anyway, your clear bias towards Western Civilization and ardent obsession with the Classics shines through. Then again, you're a philosophy teacher--you have to be passionate about it.

I'm not arguing that Latin and Greek don't have their place. I'm simply suggesting that it's not of critical importance, not on the level that proper modern grammar, spelling, and arithmetic are.