CAMPUS

More on Wisdom vs. Knowledge

In the book, Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition (edited by Father Matthew Lamb and Matthew Levering, 2008 Oxford University Press), there is an essay on the Declaration on Christian Education, Gravissimum Educationis, by Don J. Briel, who is the founder of the Catholic Studies department at the University of St. Thomas, MN. Twice he speaks about John Henry Cardinal Newman’s view of the university. Both support my statements about wisdom vs. knowledge.

Re: Wisdom vs. Knowledge

Paul, you raise some great points. “There are many people who have not had a college education who are very wise, and vice versa. So the question we need to address is: Do we go to a university to become wise?” I don’t have an answer to your question as of now, but I do have one comment: just because some people go to a university and aren’t wise does not mean that wisdom cannot be the purpose of a university. It would just mean sometimes universities fail. Similarly, just because some people are wise without having attended university could simply mean that sometimes universities are not needed. So I don’t know if your point gets us anywhere.

Re: Education First, Saving the World Later

CJ,
It may seem to a spectator at first glance that you and I have a lot of disagreement based on what we have said, but of course, everything I said was pertaining to a private, religious institution, which you exempted.

I do want to clarify a few things based on what you have now said. You call for “Education First, Saving the World Later.” This is exactly what the Society of Jesus holds as it as ideal, as well. The criteria for success is how the graduates of such an institution have changed the world; the university’s goal remains education.

Re: Re: Ideas have Consequences

Paul,
I think if you reread my first post you will see that I was not suggesting that the primary task of a university is for research but for the education and formation of the whole person, not towards knowledge, but towards wisdom.

Should professors teach a system?

I am not sure if I agree with Paul when he writes, “I think the true purpose of professors is not to teach that one set of thinkers is categorically right, but to present the strengths and weaknesses of all positions.” I think that Paul’s concern is that if one learns Kant from a Thomist, the professor will spend the time explaining the problems with Kant. One needs to understand Kant on his own terms. This is a valid concern, but once one has a full grasp of Kant, should the professor allow his or her students to remain trapped within the confines of Kant’s world? I would argue no. One way around this is to study thought in a progressive manner, so that one begins with Socrates and see show Aristotle improves upon him, and then Thomas on Aristotle, then Descartes, etc. Of course, this only leads to the belief that whoever is most recent is most right.

Ideas have Consequences

In the words of Richard Weaver, “Ideas have consequences.” Any time a professor gives a student a new idea, that professor has changed the way the student acts. The professor who teaches students that two compounds when mixed will explode has changed the way the students mix compounds. Similarly, the professor who has his students read about Socrates encourages his students to seek the Good. If a university introduces its students to the Western tradition, they will be undergoing a certain moral formation.