So I worked on a reply for like an hour this morning.. and the computer accidentally got shut down before I managed to hit post. So I'm going to try again... It is 2am though so my thinking is a little jumbly.
Systematiker wrote:So, Reineke did better than I would have about the extent of Latin, as I wouldn't have had numbers about the corpus - I'll leave that numerical bit to those who have the resources and desire
Reineke is awesome like that
I'd also like to note that I speak a lot about the Western Canon below, and of Western tradition. This is not to denigrate any other tradition, nor out of any desire to deny anyone a seat at the table. I am very aware of those who have been excluded from said conversation, and the problems of inclusivity (and that's a whole 'nother tangent).
This is actually of interest to me. You can answer or consider this rhetorical musings as you prefer.. but who has been excluded and why? Whole cultures or individuals not lucky enough to live at the right place and time? Because of point in history (relative to destabilizing events), ancient biases, or present biases?
Regarding the role of the conversation throughout the WestAni wrote:The discussion evolved into the assertion that the thinking and ideas most valuable to the world came through Latin and Greek. I think that is kind of a dumb statement since it is unverifiable, but it prompted a great discussion.
I think here the assertion is about the "world" that took its path through Western Europe and into the Americas. Latin philosophy considered itself the inheritors of the Greek tradition
Here I think I was wrong in my original thinking. I was thinking quantitatively as in - Idea #1 Cheeseburgers, Idea #2 Firetrucks, Idea #3 Presumption of innocence. But as I roll this around in my head, I can see how in retrospect, there is a sense of flow to the spread of civilization. This was sort of hit home for me when I realized the influence the Ancient Egyptians had on the Greeks. Because of the widespread lingua franca status over significant periods of time, Latin and Greek sort of bottleneck a very large portion of uhm... historical stuff.
Indirectly as well, in both the anglophone world and through Europe, we have a cultural tradition of education in these "classical" languages, and "classical" works. If one were particularly interested in that tradition, the modality is through the vehicle of the original, as it's been a bit of Western culture since the Renaissance that the source text in the source language expresses more than a translation.
Ok here is where I am interested. We have a cultural tradition. Who is "we" exactly. What do we do to gain entrance into such group. What is the value of such group that we are selecting our education path to join, and is this education path giving us something of equal or greater value when we consider the opportunity cost for not using a more modern education system.
Ani wrote:Further, for important works, you can usually find long expositions that containing all the analysis and translational considerations.
This is true, however, I'd argue that the amount of time to become genuinely conversant with the literature explaining all the bits around translation and background and influence approximates (if it is not greater than) the time to learn enough Greek and Latin to read comfortably.
Ok I'll give you this
Regarding cultural signaling, comparative culture, and value by ageAni wrote:To this end, how do we separate what is cultural signaling in educational choices from what has a quantitative value.. or is it even possible to quantify or analyze great thought across distinct cultures. And how does the idea that "the length of time a work has survived is indicative of the value of ideas it contains" relate here..?
I'm not entirely sure what cultural signaling is, to be honest. Something like virtue signaling, and the desire to belong to a specific cultural tradition?
That is exactly what I mean by cultural signaling. Since this whole 'debate' cropped up because out of a discussion with friends who had decided to start teaching their very young daughter Latin. I proposed a living language as a first step, an idea they rejected off hand. DH and I were discussing WHY and we supposed it might say something about you as a parent and something about your child and their place in society rather different than if you started your child in Russian or Spanish.
(These are good friends by the way, so I am not being judgy about someones educational choices except in the I-really-enjoy-discussing-this-theory sort of way. )
I'm not sure great thought can be quantified at all, and even influence can be argued for anyone but the really heavy hitters. I think there's perhaps a lot in education that can't be quantified, but I tend to talk about education as both "imparting of knowledge, practical or not" and "formation" (again, something I have from not-English!
),
Elaborate more on this please?
The "or not" part is the one sort of unique aspect I take in educating my children. I have tried valiantly to eliminate non-practical education. I have to make a few concessions. I think I might have to eventually teach them the pledge of allegiance. Or at least what it is. And we don't spend a week each year talking about "The first Thanksgiving", making handprint turkeys and pilgrim shoes because my goal in history is to avoid teaching things that are so simplified they might as well be lies, which they'll have to re-learn in a few years.
Where do Latin and Greek fit into the "practical or not" category and do you find them practical or not?
Or are they formation?
so we may not be talking about the same thing here. My question when considering educational choices is more "what sort of person might be shaped by this" or "what sort of person might need to be exposed by this" and seeing of that (in my concept) lines up with my goal (ha, to say nothing of anyone else's goal!).
I don't think time has much to do with value, but within traditions, we do see ideas recur, and I think there's a lot of value in being able to look at a "literary conversation" across the ages, and the manner in which these ideas are taken up, modified, passed on, and have shaped our surroundings.
So on a scale of 1-5, where would you place early exposure to Latin and or Greek for participation in "The Great Conversation"?
So excusing my hipocracy in that I am studying Latin with my 7 year old daughter, I'd say that exposure before age 10 is about a -1. That's a negative 1. Unless it is part of church service for you, in which cause this is a completely different thing. Between the ages of 12-15, for an average kid, I'd say maybe a 2, and if you think he/she is likely to be very languag-y, a doctor, a lawyer, historian, etc, maybe we move into 4-5 level importance.
Really though in comparison to learning a living language first. This is where I get really torn. I believe to learn a spoken language well is really more valuable in the sense of education of the human, but if you are going to learn a language poorly as happens in many schools in America as well as other places, it might be better to learn a dead language poorly than get off on the wrong foot with a living language. Flip flopping, I assume my friends will succeed at teaching their daughters whatever they plan to teach them and so a living language done well in that way has even more benefit.
As one can probably tell, I have specific ideas about education and culture, and come from this viewpoint in much of the above. I've tried not to be pedantic or long-winded (which is difficult at the best of times, and more so when you figure that this is right in the middle of a conversation about stuff that I teach or discuss academically) - if I've been too unclear, or if I've offended anyone, please know I don't mean to, and I'm trying hard to have a nice conversation. My wife tells me not to go on and on and on and on, so I'm trying to not do that as well!
No no I love this. And if anyone feels you have taken a biased viewpoint (or me for that matter as we keep going!) or poorly expressed something as to be offensive (ditto for me), I hope they feel free to jump in here and provide a counter consideration or clarification in the spirit of a nice conversation, because I think that is all any of us are trying to have.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.