The Great Conversation

What is truth?  What are morals?  On what principles can a good government be based upon?  Is there a Supreme Creator?  Is the biblical account of the creation of man accurate?  Did men evolve over many centuries?  What is the purpose of life?  These and other similar questions have been asked throughout the centuries that man has existed upon the earth.   For the purpose of answering these questions, a collection of books, essays, and poems have been collected into one set entitle The Great Books of the Western World.  The introduction to this tremendous resource is entitled The Great Conversation by Robert M. Hutchins.   This introduction is the focus of this essay.

The Great Conversation by Robert M. Hutchins is an awe inspiring essay.  The essay is the introduction to the Great Book Series of the Western World.  The Great Books are a collection of different essay, poems, and books written that have influenced the world of politics, philosophy, religion.  Hutchins argues in this essay that the books chosen for this set make it clear that there has been a Great Conversation going on through history.  

Obviously there have been a lot of books written throughout history.  With the invention of the printing press books have been printed at an ever increasing pace.  In the first paragraph Hutchins that the books included in this set have endured the test of time, inspiring many common people to do great things.  These are the books that are the masterpieces of the Western mind.  Many have been added to this list, and removed at different times.  Some have proven obsolete, or another book may explain the issue better.

Up until the late 1800’s many of the books were required to be read for college.  To be considered educated one must read the books in Greek or Latin.  The thought was something similar to ‘You must read the classics in the original language to appreciate them.’  So many a school boy studied Latin and Greek. 

One particular point stressed in The Great Conversation is that this set of books is not the only great books ever written and that many people will and have been educated without reading any of these classics.   “We do not think they (the books in the Great Books set) are the only books worth reading.”  But a reason is given for the studying of them: “We think that these books shed some light on all our basic problems, and that it is folly to do without any light we can get.”  I think we must follow the advice found in the Doctrine and Covenants 88:118: ‘And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.’

“…Most writers on education hold that, though education through great books and the liberal arts is still the best education for the few, it cannot be the best education for the many, because the many have not the capacity to acquire it.”

This is one statement that I disagree with.  Education has developed over the past year to become a passion of mine.  I do NOT agree with the direction public education is going in, nor do I agree with the way that education is being administered.  In A Thomas Jefferson Education by Oliver Demille, the author describes three modes, or ways, of education.  One is the factory, or mass production mode.  They water the material down, or make it easy to understand.  They pass you through standardized tests.  Not every child learns the same way, or has equal abilities.  The education system now in place treats the students as objects.  Once you finish, or graduate school, you are supposed to be educated or smart.   

There are many ways in which this system is flawed.  Not everyone can read to the same level.  Not every child is skilled in art, math, or writing.  We should treat each other as individuals, not objects.  I for one do not do well with a lot of people around me.  I learn best by myself.  In public schools, this is not an option. 

The second mode  of education is in specialization.  We have many specialists today: Doctors, lawyers, etc.  These professions require a special training course.  I don’t want to be treated by a doctor who knows little or nothing or medicine.  This is a necessary part of education.

The last mode of education is the liberal arts.  This means that you are well read, and have many skills.  You read the classics, write, and speak of them.  This will allow you to have your own opinion, (something lacking in today’s world).   People who have a liberal arts education have the ability to adapt to different jobs and setting.  Specialized people know little or nothing of something unrelated to their profession.  Learning is takes a lifetime, and even then it is left unfinished.

“The results of universal, free compulsory education in America can be acceptable only on the theory that the object of the schools is something other than education, that it is, for example, to keep the you from cluttering up homes and factories during a difficult period of their lives, or that it is to bring them together for social or recreational purposes.” 

I more than agree with the first part, about how the object of school is something other than education.  I have heard a teacher of one the public schools say that the purpose of school is to socialize the kids and to teaching them to work together in groups.   If the kids learning anything, it is an added bonus.

I am shocked at this statement!  School is where you learn how to think, read, write.  Not where you learn to interact with the world.  That should be taking place in the home!  You go to school to learn new ideas, because ideas are more powerful than the sword. 

There are many other great points made in this fantastic essay.  Any lengthy summary of it would take ages to write, discuss, and be read.  I have written but a brief summary of my favorite portion of it.  I highly recommend that EVERYONE of all ages become acquainted with some of the world’s greatest minds by reading The Great Books of the Western World and other great books.

Leaders and Politics

Leaders and Politics

While recently reading the book Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card I began to think a lot about leadership.  The adults knew that in order to defeat the buggars, they had to have a kid, someone who was innocent, and someone who they could manipulate into killing millions of buggars. 

What makes a good leader?  Leaders are often role models for kids.  A role model is someone whom a person can look up to for guidance.  Leaders must make the tough decision, often at a loss of popularity.  They must be willing to sacrifice for the good of others.  They must be totally dedicated.  Someone who is a leader must sometimes compromise.  A true leader must be ethical, dedicated, and willing to do what is right, no matter the consequences.

In today’s world, these types of leaders are hard to find.  There are a lot of athletes who many look to as role models for success.  So who are these athletes?  Kobe Bryant?  Sure, he has been successful on the basketball court.  He’s won five NBA Championships.  But in 2003 a 19  year old woman accused him of rape.  But because he is a “superstar” the woman refused to testify in court, which lead to a settlement.  (click here for the story:  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-03-02-bryant-settles_x.htm)

A good leader must have high morals and ethics.  If he does not conduct himself in a clean, moral way, he is not a good leader.  He is showing kids, who always are looking for role models, that it is good, desirable, or even respectable to act in such ways.  One example of a leader who has very low morals is Newt Gingrich.  He is running for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States in 2012.  He has had three wives, two of which he divorced.  His wife recently came out with some startling evidence of his low morals:  while Newt and his ex-wife were still married Newt asked if she would be OK with an open marriage so that he could continue his romance with his mistress. (Click here for the story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marianne-gingrich-newts-ex-wife-says-he-wanted-open-marriage/2012/01/19/gIQAJzgwAQ_story.html)  And we as American citizens are supposed to vote for such a man! 

So who can we turn to for our guidance?  Is there anyone who lives today that embodies all of the qualities a true, great leader must have?  I believe we must often times look into the past to uncover some of the greatest heroes.  Not all of the great leaders of history were even known by their contemporaries, such as Alexander the Great. 

I believe that if we are looking for a perfect role model the only place we will find that person is in Christianity:  Jesus Christ.  He is truly the greatest leader, and teacher of all time.  Some may not agree with this statement.

I believe that every human being has faults.  In Christianity we except Christ as divine.  We believe Him to be the only perfect being to ever walk this earth.  For decades the Founding Fathers of our wonderful country were looked to as examples of leaders.  The books written of them and their times were written romantically at times.  They often glossed over the fact that the world they lived in was far from perfect.  That they had slaves, which most people who live now consider anyone who did today as being far from being a moral person. 

That view of the Founders prevailed until scholars and authors began to magnify their many weaknesses being in the 1950’s.  Generations of American school children looked to them as role models.  Today in our schools we have teachers and textbooks mock the founding fathers.  They describe people of amazing ability, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, as nasty hypocrites for holding slaves.  The people of the founding generation fought a bloody war over the idea of freedom, when they themselves kept millions in bondage.

I think any kind of slavery is wrong.  But I do believe that slavery was part of the world they founders lived in.  They did the best they could.  If you have ever carefully read the constitution you will see that the same founders that supposedly loved slavery made a provision, written directly into the founding document of this nation that allowed the federal government to end the slave trade.  They knew it was wrong, but didn’t think it was possible to change everything so radically at the same time.

Change often takes generations to take place.  There are times when radical changes need to happen.  This leads us to another quality true leaders must have:  the ability and knowledge of when and where to compromise with others to accomplish something.  There are times when you have to take a stand for what you believe to be right.

The Founders knew this.  They knew that “taxation without representation” was wrong.  They did something about it.  Several times the British reached out to reconcile the American colonies without relinquishing this right to tax without representation.  People such as John Adams and his cousin, Samuel Adams, knew that this was something they could not compromise.  They led the events that led to our freedom.

An example of the Founders compromising is found throughout the Constitutional Convention in 1787.  James Madison had Edmund Randolph present a plan known as the Virginia Plan, which favored the states with a large population and land mass.  Small states, such as Delaware, did not like it.  They wanted equal representation in any federal government.  The debate on this topic often grew heated.  The small states threatened to withdraw without a new government agreed upon.  Madison, Franklin and Washington knew that this could not happen.  Finally a man named Roger Sherman presented what is known to history as the Connecticut Compromise.  This called for two separate houses in the Congress: the House of Representatives, which would be based on population, and the Senate, which each state would have two seats in, regardless of the population.

How important was it to have membership in the new Congress based on population?  Not very important evidently.  The founders knew that they had to come up with a compromise.  You will not win every battle you fight.  There are times when you must stand up for your beliefs. 

I believe that every man, woman and child can become a great leader.  How many mothers and fathers have been excellent role models for their children, even helping others to life themselves a little higher?  My parents are excellent examples of leaders.  They are always willing to serve others to help improve their country and community.  History books may never be written of their lives, but that does not diminish what they have done and the kind of leaders they are.

There are many examples of leaders and leadership demonstrated throughout history.  There are many great leaders today.  I believe we must all strive to become better leaders so that one day, if history calls upon us to lead a great cause, we will be prepared. 

Feelings.

So tonight I had a visit with a Stake Presidency member,  President Anderson.  I went to have him endorse me to be worthy to go to BYU-Idaho.  Well, the discussion went a very different direction.  He started asking me questions about the mission, how it felt, was it hard, and other things.  Then he started telling me that he thought that I didn't have a desire to go back on the mission.  He asked me straight up if I had a desire to return.  I told him I had absolutely no such desire.

We got into a big discussion about how having desire makes all the difference.  He asked if I had done everything possible to go back.  I believe I've given 99%.  He wants me to give 110%.  As far as I was concerned, I was through with the missoin.  I had tried hard, did my excercises, and felt good about not heading back on the mission.  I still do now.

But he said that if I walked away right now, that I'd always be miserable.  That I'd always wonder what would have happened if I went back.  I have those thoughts now.  I believe I always will.  He wants me to try everything possible to go back, starting with my desire to.  If I have no desire, then I won't do it.  Desire is key to everything.  If I don't want to, I won't. I must admit that the desire is not here now.  But President Anderson asked me to pray to have it restored, and I will.

He also asked me if I would attend the temple every week.  I am going tomorrow morning. I will try my best.  He also wants me to write in my journal everyday as well as reading my patriarchal blessing daily.  I plan on doing those things, as I should have already been doing them. 

So I have a few questions.  Is something wrong with not wanting to go back.  Am I in the wrong?  Is there someone else out there for only me to find?  Can I reach a few more people?  Is it the right thing for me to do?  What is right at this point in my life?  Should I seek employment?  What will happen to James and Steven's education if I leave?  I want them to be awesome, (like me) and to truly understand themselves.  I don't know the answer to those questions.  Right I honestly feel like my service as a misisonary is finished. I truly do believe that. That may change, but those are my feelings.  I also am very unsure of my future.  I guess I just need to trust my leaders, and do thing simple things of life. 

So my plan for moving forward:  Stay at church, go to temple often, write on my blog daily, read my patriarchal blessing daily, continue studying, writing and thinking.  There should never be a time when I'm not adding to my knowledge of the world, whether secularly or spiritually. 

This article can be found at:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/21/the-ideology-of-isolationism/

Supporters of Ron Paul have re-launched an old ad promoting the old idea of American isolationism.  “We now are a nation known to start war,” Paul is quoted as saying.  “We feel compelled because of our insecurity that we have to go over and attack these countries to maintain our empire.”  The message here (and repeated elsewhere) is that Paul’s isolationism is aligned with the Founding Fathers and “what is truly American and truly constitutional.” Not only is this refrain a gross misrepresentation of American history but it offers dangerously misleading guidance to a nation that faces serious challenges at home and abroad.

Following this lead, some are tempted by the myth that our Founders were isolationists who sought to withdraw from the world and focus solely on the home front. At a time of international fatigue and anxiety about America’s future, I understand the sentiment.  But it’s simply not the case.

The Founders rejected modern approaches in American foreign policy—whether power politics, isolationism or crusading internationalism. They especially disagreed with the “visionary, or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace,” as Hamilton put it in Federalist 6.  Instead, they designed a truly American foreign policy—fundamentally shaped by our principles but not ignorant of the place of necessity in international relations.

The classic statement of this is Washington’s Farewell Address, sometimes wrongly read as isolationist dogma. Yes, Washington rightly warns us against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence” and yes, Washington correctly states that in extending commercial relations we should have as little political connection with those nations as possible.  That’s not isolationism but common sense.  Washington goes on to state the objective: “to gain time for our country to settle and mature its recent institutions, and to progress, without interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, command of its own fortunes.”  And again:

If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.

Rather than trap themselves in some absolute and permanent doctrine of nonintervention in the world, the Founders advocated a prudent and flexible policy aimed at achieving and thereafter permanently maintaining the sovereign independence for Americans to determine their own fate.  And without providing for our own security, how can we hope to control our own destiny or command our own fortunes?

The requirements of security are dictated by the challenges and threats we face in the world. “How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?” Madison asked in Federalist 41.

The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others…. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions.

The dangerous ambitions of power were to be found in the passions of human nature. As Hamilton wrote inFederalist 34:

To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.

Necessity dictates that the United States must be ready to fight wars and use force to protect the nation and the American people.  Hence Washington often liked to use the old Roman maxim: “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of promoting peace.”  The Founders made sure they were prepared and were not reluctant to use force.  How else can we choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel?

National security is a challenge for all nations, but particularly for democratic political systems dedicated to the limitation of power.  Many actions necessary for security employ the use of force and proceed in ways that are often secretive and less open than democracy prefers. Likewise, national security sometimes requires restrictions and sacrifices that would be inimical to personal liberty were it not for significant threats to the nation.

The solution to this dilemma is not to deny the use of force or to make it so onerous as to be ineffective. Rather, it is to establish a well-constructed constitution that focuses power on legitimate purposes and then divides that power so that it does not go unchecked, preserving liberty while providing for a nation that can—and will—defend its liberty.

Government spending, its massive bloat and constitutional overreach must be on the chopping block. But the core and undisputed constitutional responsibility of the United States government to provide for the common defense is not up for negotiation.

At a time when we should be seriously thinking about our strategy and commitments anew in an increasingly dangerous world—doing so in the context of unlimited government spending and uncontrolled debt that threatens to force us in to national bankruptcy and undermine our very sovereign independence—we should be wary of claims, however tempting in the moment, that the naïve ideology of isolationism has a place in the pantheon of America’s principles.

Self-Education

I found this fantastic article on this website:
http://selfmadescholar.com/b/2007/03/06/introduction-to-self-education/

What is self-education?
Self-education is learning in its purest form. You decide what you want to learn, when you’re going to learn it, and how you’re going to master the subject. There are no formal teachers, no essays, no exams, no group projects, and no grades.
You can start at any age, whether you’re one or one-hundred. It’s one of the best ways to become an interesting person and sure beats spending your weekends in front of the TV.
Why self-education?
Take a look at almost any great historical figure and you’ll find that he is a product of self-education. Even if he was a college graduate, chances are that he spent years or even decades independently studying topics that were relevant to his life.
Consider these examples:
Abigail Adams received no formal education. Instead, she taught herself by reading works from her father’s large library. She went on to become the second First Lady of the United States, and an early champion for women’s rights.
Renowned mythologist Joseph Campbell decided not to follow his plans to earn a doctorate degree. Instead, after earning his Master’s, Campbell retreated into the woods of upstate New York. For five years he read for upwards of nine hours a day, and developed his unique perspective on the power of myth. He went on to teach what he learned and write books, such as The Power of Myth and The Hero With a Thousand Faces – works that are still studied on college campuses today.
Early American patriot Benjamin Franklin ended his formal education when he was just ten years old. He went on to become a printing press apprentice, working for his brother. Through the years he was an avid reader and writer. He published several books including The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, invented products such as the lighting rod and bifocal glasses, and assisted in the writing of the Declaration of Independence.
Too old-fashioned you say? How about these:

• Science Fiction writer Ray Bradbury developed his writing skills by spending his time reading at a local library instead of attending college. He went on to pen sci-fi classics such as The Martian Chronicles and Fahrenheit 451.
• Richard Branson decided he wanted to get experience with business when he was 16. He didn’t finish high school, but he is the owner of both American Airways and Virgin Records.
• James Cameron didn’t need film school. He dropped out of college to get practical experience in the movies and later directed films such as Titanic.
• Michael Dell decided to sell computers instead of stay in college. Chances are high that you’ve purchased electronics from his company – Dell Computers.

To see an extended list of self-educators who have made a difference in the world, check out this site from Autodidactic Press.
Clearly, self-education is the key to personal development. Learning is what helps people understand their world, participate in that world, and make good judgments about what they see. While formal education and training can be helpful, most people can’t afford to spend their entire lives locked away in college classrooms. Nor would they want to.
Independent study gives people the chance to learn about the topics they choose – in depth and at their own pace.
What should I learn?
Learn anything you want.
Consider starting with the classics. Unless you graduated from an Ivy League school or attended a liberal arts college with a great books program, chances are that you missed out on a classical education. You didn’t get the chance to delve into the literature that defines Western civilization and reflects the “great conversation” – an ongoing discussion seeking answers to society’s timeless questions. Not only can studying the classics give you a greater understanding of history, it can give you a deeper understanding of what is going on in the world today.
Alternatively, you could choose to study an academic subject that interests you. Learn what makes a great writer, study historic architecture, become a religious scholar, or perform science experiments in your basement. You can start to become an expert at any age. If you’re in high school, there’s nothing stopping you from becoming the local expert on jazz music. If you already graduated college, chances are you still didn’t get the opportunity to study everything you wanted to know. This time, do it your way. No need to follow a syllabus or wait for the group – study exactly what you want to know.
Or, perhaps you would like to develop a skill or a trade. Learn to frame a house, grow herbs, or sew clothes. Practical, hands-on skills are no less valuable than academic knowledge. Of course, don’t be surprised if your new-found cooking skills make you the talk of the neighborhood. Bon Appétit.