ForumGarden

Modern Renaissance Person: A Piece of Cake

To the self-actualizing self-learner who has studied briefly the high points in human history the prospect of ever comprehending the human condition seems overwhelming. Where to begin? Perhaps some comprehension as to why the ancients could only propose eschatological solutions becomes apparent. Explanations for the human condition can come only from the beyond; perhaps only the will of God can be a starting point.

When we realize this we perhaps will be less condescending regarding the errors of the early thinkers when they began to seek a human solution for a crisis in human knowledge. How to set a coherent path to alleviate the chaotic drift in education and the fragmentation of thought?

The term ‘Renaissance Man’ suggests a wo/man of many accomplishments. S/he is a person who is not a specialist but a generalist, a person who knows a significant amount about many domains of knowledge rather than knowing more and more about less and less as does the specialist.

We might consider two classifications of knowledge similar to Aristotle’s definition. Accordingly one can have a ‘scientific knowledge’ of a matter or one can have an ‘educational acquaintance’ with that matter. Scientific knowledge is the possession of the specialist who knows not just general principles and conclusions of the field but also many of the detailed findings included therein. Educational acquaintance comes with a comprehension of the methods of the subject, not just the details, particulars, and conclusions. A person with an educational acquaintance with a domain of knowledge is a person who is “critical in that field.

To quote Aristotle “It will, however, of course, be understood that we only ascribe universal education to one who in his own individual person is thus critical in all or nearly all branches of knowledge, and not to one who has a like ability merely in some special subject. For it is possible for a man to have this competence in some one branch of knowledge without having it in all.

The individual with an educational acquaintance in a field of knowledge is one who is capable of sorting out sense from non-sense in that field.

Some will whine that today, with all of our knowledge, it is impossible for anyone to become a Renaissance Person. I say non-sense! With the world’s accumulated knowledge at our finger-tips anyone who has practiced the art and science of navigating knowledge can quickly gain an educational acquaintance with any domain of knowledge in a matter of weeks rather than a matter of years as would be required in ancient times. Today becoming a Bacon or a Thomas is, relatively, a piece of cake.

I thought that the problem was that as the sum of human knowledge becomes ever larger and more comprehensive, that its much harder for your average genius to have an overview of everything??? Its certainly the case in science anway, I mean it was possible in 1800 for one very intelligent person to have a good grasp of all the major disciplines, even in some detail. But now? Forget it. Its one of the reasons that philosohy has not kept up with science in the 20th century, (even just physics, and thats only one branch) and even now, most of the philosophical questions that 20th century science has brought into the open have not been dealt with in a comprehensive way by anyone (scientists or philosophers). Perhaps in this century it will be different.

Pinky

As you say, people just need to learn how to learn. Also motivation is absolutly necessary. Likewise curiosity. American people are generally very industrious but have such an anti-intellectual bias that they find learning after their schooling days are over to be alien.

Diuretic

I hesitate to disagree with a man like Whitehead but do so here with the proviso that I can change my mind after seeing the context in which he made that statement. It is a statement that can be damaging for people who take it to mean that learning of non-instrumental knowledge is a useless bore.

Self-directed intellection can increase a person’s net worth. An autodidactic can increase his/her net worth in two ways: a) taking interested knowledge as a means to qualify for a new career, b) taking ‘disinterested knowledge’ as an end thereby creating a newly developing self in a newly apprehended world.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it.

I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand certain matters. The self-learner seeks to ‘see’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. That knowledge and understanding that is sought by the autodidactic is only determined by personal motivations.

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is in a single-minded search for truth. The goal, truth, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

There is a great difference between knowing and understanding. Everyone can answer “yes when asked if they know music. Of course, ‘all god’s chilin’ know music. We receive answers that go on forever when we ask a teenager if they know music. We awaken instant and sentimental memories when we ask an older person to tell what they know about music. A great deal of emotion is contained in our ‘knowing’ about music.

Silence and puzzlement is our response when we ask a person “do you understand music? Occasionally the question “do you understand music? receives an expression of delight and a verbal outpouring. The person who understands music--they are few and far between--has studied music in a way very few of us have. I suspect such a person is not only a lover but also a student of music. I do not understand music but I do understand the meaning of “understanding music.

I create this musical metaphor for the purpose of illuminating a state of affairs of which we are seldom conscious.

Our formal educational system teaches us the knowledge required for making a living. Our formal education does not teach us the understanding required to live well. The development of understanding is something each of us must create on our own. If we do not recognize this fact we will not pursue this understanding and if we do not pursue this understanding we will remain intellectually naive.

We start our formal education experience as intellectually naïve children and end it twelve to eighteen years later as well informed intellectually naïve grown ups.

After formal education ends our understanding begins. The task of understanding is a private enterprise by me and for me. Understanding begins with this recognition and continues as one creates a process for the solitary activity of self-learning. I think a person could look at self-learning as a hobby, it could be one of your hobbies like tennis or golf, just a few hours each week and I suspect after a while it will become a very important part of your life style. Developing a sophisticated intellect is a solitary study lasting a lifetime.

Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.

I would like to find a book that might define the characteristics of a domain of knowledge that a person might need to meet the criteria of “educated acquaintance that Aristotle speaks of. A person with an educational acquaintance with a domain of knowledge is a person who is “critical in that field. It appears that Aristotle means the general principles and conclusions of the field that a person who is “critical in that field would have.

Can anyone suggest a book that I might read that would spell out what one might need to know and why they would need to know it to meet the criteria of having an “educational acquaintance with a domain of knowledge?

Diuretic

A domain of knowledge becomes a science if it meets certain standards. These are standards regarding principles, methods, paradigms, theories, etc. I am looking for this Philosophy of Science type of book. I am assuming some things here but it makes sense to me. I guess such a philosophy must exist.

Diuretic;508919 wrote: coberst - believe me when I say that I am trying to understand and not being disingenuous or just a bloody idiot.

Now, my remarks may be off the target but it's pointless staying quiet (difficult for me anyway).

When I read "domain" and "knowledge" I immediately think of Benjamin Bloom and later David Krathwold on the investigation into the psychomotor domain. Now this is nothing new, Bloom's taxonomy has been around, I think, since about 1962 (???) and Krathwold (psychomotor domain research) a bit later. But I suspect that's not what you're looking for.

Be patient with me. I'm thinking as I type.

If you are looking for a philosophy of science then the boffins here are the best ones to advise you. But if you're looking to explore issues of formal/informal education and learning then I stand ready to help if I can.


Aus

I have been made aware that what I want can be found in books about the philosophy of science. A Wikipedia quote follows:

Philosophy of science studies the philosophical assumptions, foundations, and implications of science, including the formal sciences, natural sciences, and social sciences. In this respect, the philosophy of science is closely related to epistemology and metaphysics. Note that issues of scientific ethics are not usually considered to be part of the philosophy of science; they are studied in such fields as bioethics and science studies.

In particular, the philosophy of science considers the following topics: the character and the development of concepts and terms, propositions and hypotheses, arguments and conclusions, as they function in science; the manner in which science explains natural phenomena and predicts natural occurrences; the types of reasoning that are used to arrive at scientific conclusions; the formulation, scope, and limits of scientific method; the means that should be used for determining when scientific information has adequate objective support; and the implications of scientific methods and models, along with the technology that arises from scientific knowledge for the larger society.

In the United States our colleges and universities are primarily dedicated to providing graduates who can easily move into a job slot. Our higher education trains individuals for particular types of jobs. In the US education has become primarily an object of commerce. Parents send their children to college so they can get good jobs. Any other matter is considered to be a waste of time.

In the US we have a difficulty with the word "science" because most people use that word to mean 'natural science'. Most US citizens do not comprehend that the word can also mean all domains of knowledge that meet a certain standard.

I do value your input, we are merely being distracted with the standard problem of learning the meaning of each others expressions.