CAMPUS » Newman

More on Wisdom vs. Knowledge

Donato Infante — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:39:59 +0000

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.

“In its 1982 statement on the role of lay faculty in Catholic schools the congregation reiterated Newman’s distinction between professional instruction in which one transmits a body of knowledge and education which aims to form the human person as a whole” (392).

“[In Gravissimum Educationis], There was a clear recognition, as Newman had pointed out a century earlier, that great ideas are grown into and not learned by heart…” (395)

Re: Wisdom vs. Knowledge

Donato Infante — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:11:15 +0000

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.

“I did not mean to suggest that professors should play the devil’s advocate all the time and try to remain neutral in what they present. I think it is important that they have firm convictions and let the students know where they stand. I just want to emphasize, as perhaps Leo Strauss would, the importance of reading texts esoterically-assuming the author has something important and insightful to say.” I’m glad we agree on this. That was what I hoped you were trying to say, which is why I used the example of a Thomist teaching Kant.

However, I disagree when you say that the Jesuits added something to the mission of a university. I would argue they maintained something most universities lost. If we look at where universities came from, we see they built up around the cathedral schools and were always attached to religion. Not only that, but the Church viewed them as part of the divine commission to go and teach all nations and baptize. This is merely a historical question, one to which I do not know the answer, but how familiar was Cardinal Newman with secular universities? Were most universities in his day still tied to an ecclesial establishment? Even our great universities like Harvard and Yale were religious. So religious, in fact, that Yale is a response to Harvard’s loss of religious heritage. Now, they’ve lost that character, so we know that institutions do change, but was Newman only thinking in terms of religious institutions to begin with?

One perspective on Newman

Paul Mueller — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:36:21 +0000

While the purpose of a university is obviously to increase knowledge, I think it is important to understand its limitations. I think one of Henry Newman’s most important claims is:

“Quarry the granite rock with razors,
or moor the vessel with a thread of silk;
then may you hope with such keen and
delicate instruments as human knowledge
and human reason to contend against
those giants, the passion and the pride
of man.”

Knowledge, by itself, does not make men good. It makes them knowledgeable. There are many intelligent professors and students who are aware of the great books and minds of the Western Tradition but still reject it. All philosophies require certain basic assumptions. If students or professors disagree with the assumptions, they are going to disagree with the ideas. A great book on this topic is Thomas Sowell’s Conflict of Visions.

A university is an institution teaching “universal knowledge.” This not only includes all fields of study, physics, biology, psychology, economics, history, philosophy, and so on; it also includes presenting the whole range of ideas on a topic. It means looking at Rousseau and Hegel as well as John Locke and Adam Smith. It means exposing students to the thought of Nietzsche as well as that of Richard Weaver or Russell Kirk. 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.