The question of what living is for?of what one should care about and why?is the most important question a person can ask. Yet under the influence of the modern research ideal, our colleges and universities have expelled this question from their classrooms, judging it unfit for organized study. In this eloquent and carefully considered book, Tony Kronman explores why this has happened and calls for the restoration of life?s most important question to an honored place in higher education.
The author contrasts an earlier era in American education, when the question of the meaning of life was at the center of instruction, with our own times, when this question has been largely abandoned by college and university teachers. In particular, teachers of the humanities, who once felt a special responsibility to guide their students in exploring the question of what living is for, have lost confidence in their authority to do so. And they have lost sight of the question itself in the blinding fog of political correctness that has dominated their disciplines for the past forty years.
Yet Kronman sees a readiness for change--a longing among teachers as well as students to engage questions of ultimate meaning. He urges a revival of the humanities? lost tradition of studying the meaning of life through the careful but critical reading of great works of literary and philosophical imagination. And he offers here the charter document of that revival.
Beware Author's Bias Against Religion October 26, 2008 0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I read "Education's End" after the glowing recommendation Charles Murray gave it in Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality. I thought that Dr. Kronman made some interesting arguments, but I was very much turned off by his treatment of religion throughout the book.
He criticizes religion as "mindless obscurantism" and dismisses the idea that there is one answer to the meaning of life that actually *IS* better than all competing ones. He also claims that to have religious faith one must "sacrifice the intellect" as if reason and faith were set in opposition to each other, rather than being complementary ways of knowing. He argues that religion would "have us surrender our humanity" if we acknowledge a being greater than ourselves. He writes: "It is not God that needs to be remembered. It is man. Only the recollection of humanity is an adequate response to the meaninglessness that haunts us....This, and only this, has any real promise of leading us out of the spiritual crisis in which we find ourselves today."
The type of secular humanism for which Dr. Kronman argues in "Education's End" may absolutely be better than the current dismal situation of the humanities in today's universities. What is True, Good, and Beautiful may be found in secular works as well as in religious ones (though one of course must be careful to reject what is false in them). But secular humanism isn't the best solution to the spiritual crisis that plagues modern society. Humans cannot save themselves, only God can.
A MUST READ FOR PROSPECTIVE GRADUATE STUDENTS October 13, 2008 This book is a must read for anyone that is contemplating graduate school in one of the social sciences or humanities. Professor Kronman objectively explains the emphasis on the so-called "research model" that sometimes seems to be more interersted in statistics for their own sake rather than reasonaed substance.
Addressing life's meaning for some. September 30, 2008 1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Education's End is fascinating and provides a persuasive argument for the restoration of liberal education. Kronman argues that the central role of the humanities should be to enable undergraduates to address the question of the meaning of life. He traces the historical development of colleges and universities as they have moved from the antebellum colleges with their theistic answers to this fundamental question and through the phase where secular humanism offered alternative answers. According to Kornman, the humanities in our institutions of higher education have recently been neutered by the dual domination of the academic research ideal and political correctness. His book concludes with an optimistic chapter predicting the return of secular humanism with the diminution of political correctness, the increasing hunger for answers to the question of the meaning of life, and the inability of traditional religions to provide answers to this question. Kronman's central arguments are insightful and persuasive but some of his supporting arguments are overly simplistic. A minor point is that he states that nineteenth century German universities were first and most influential in promoting research as an academic ideal. In fact, academic specialization began in Scotland when the regenting system was abandoned at the University of Edinburgh in 1707 and at the University of Glasgow in 1727. Some of the chairs at Glasgow supporting specialization and the dates of their establishment were: mathematics (1691); botany and anatomy (1704); and medicine (1713). The discipline of chemistry flourished in Scotland during the second half of the eighteenth century. A major point is that Kronman uses a rather broad brush in dealing with those who believe in God, at one point casting into one group "the fundamentalist Protestant churches in America, the jihadist wing of Islam and the Pope." Jihadists are as Islamic as the IRA were Roman Catholic. Elsewhere, he suggests that members of organized religion cannot participate in the great conversation because their bigotry prohibits them from recognizing the positions of those of other religions or of secular humanists. Some of his general statements may lead the reader to believe that this characterization applies to all believers of all the world's great religions. Yale may be an exception but the majority of students at many universities who profess a faith in God would find themselves excluded from the dialogue Professor Kronman so passionately promotes.
reviving secular humanism September 13, 2008 This book is, in short, an argument for reviving a curriculum in secular humanism in undergraduate studies. He begins with the argument that purpose of college is to encourage the young student to ask the the big questions on the meaning of life. He seems to believe that there are sufficient numbers of adults working in colleges today who have an interest and ability in doing this. He also does not appreciate the emergent spiritual values inherent in the study of the sciences. It is an interesting book (along the lines of Allen Bloom) advocating a restructuring of higher education that will never happen.
Review & Editorial August 18, 2008 5 out of 8 found this review helpful
Review:
Kronman is an intensely literate & learned Yale law professor (who also has a philosophy degree); he's also a political liberal (who worked for the SDS in the sixties & who currently supports Obama). This work, however, is a work of cultural conservatism.
Few will argue with Kronman's critique of higher learning. Both cultural progressives & cultural conservatives in the humanities will concede that college & university culture has one goal in mind: to train young minds to think professionally--that is to master a set of competencies (lexical & methodological norms) that will allow them to succeed in their chosen fields. That sounds rational enough, but the problem with this is that the professionalization of the humanities has also meant the mechanization of the humanities into a set of procedural norms that are no longer spiritually nourishing.
Kronman, who has also written a book about Max Weber, argues that the university's current predicament is the result of a long process of secularization. Kronman claims that there is a resurgent need for spirituality at the present time & that the humanities once again need to provide not just professional but spiritual guidance.
Kronman is not suggesting a return to any specific religion, what he is suggesting is a return to basic questions & concerns ( ie what is the meaning of life ?, what is the best way to live?) that he (somewhat arbitrarily) calls "spiritual" into the matrix of higher learning. This is his suggested cure not just for what ails higher learning, but for what ails humanity.
A return to basic questions & concerns sounds like a fine idea, but Kronman opens himself up to a number of problems when he equates globalization with westernization & a return to basic questions with a return to the canonical texts of western civilization (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Mill). Kronman is not exactly dismissive of multiculturalism for he believes that students should learn about other cultures, but he believes that ones primary loyalty should be to one's home culture. In other words, Kronman believes that students will not find fulfillment in "superficial multiculturalism" but by immersing themselves in strictly western ways of being/knowing/valuing/believing.
Kronman obviously means well, but he simply doesn't account for the fact that the modern classroom is full of students & teachers with roots in many different cultures & traditions. To be fair to Kronman, he does respect other cultures & traditions, and he thinks that we need to learn about them, but what he fails to acknowledge is the possibility that we may learn something from them as well. As smart as he is, Kronman's anglocentric bias prevents him from seeing the world (or the classroom) as it is: a multicultural contact zone. And he fails to see that contact with cultures & histories & traditions other than western ones does not entail a loss to the existing tradition but an addition to it.
I think Kronman, and those cultural conservatives like him, believe that their way of life, the western way of life, is threatened by multiculturalism & globalization. So Kronman reacts by writing a book that suggests we institutionally defend the west against encroachments from the nonwestern world. But the best of what has been thought in the west is not in any danger when we amend or compare & contrast those thoughts with the best that has been thought outside of the west. In fact, studying other traditions simply adds to the number of ways we can ask & answer the basic questions that concern all of humanity (and not just that portion of it that we call western).
The best possible future will be fashioned not by those who formulate east/west or west/other relations as a contest for superiority between separate worlds, but by those who have the imagination to build upon the best of what has been thought regardless of that thoughts national or hemispheric origin.
Many cultural progressives & conservatives agree that the idea of the university is in trouble. Kronman's book is valuable for diagnosing what ails the modern university and the modern world, but his prescription is overly conservative, short-sighted, and does not engage the imagination in the way that a much more comprehensive and much more far-sighted (and much less anglocentric) set of higher learning reforms would.
Editorial:
I think the idea of a return to basic questions & concerns is a good idea, but I think that the problem with education today is even more basic than that. Kronman is a lawyer & an academic who is enlivened by argument & thus he no doubt enjoyed producing this text which is an intervention into a lively debate with a long history. The problem with Kronman is that he assumes that others will be enlivened by the same things that enliven him. The problem with academia is that too many academics assume that what interests them will & should interest 18-22 year olds. Very few academics really make an attempt to understand what interests & enlivens young people & why, and so many well-intentioned academics fail to recognize that the classroom is a stifling place for many creative-minded students who are not spiritually enlivened nor fulfilled by this or that academic's version of educational life. I'm guessing that a concentration on western texts will alienate more students than it will assist or spiritually nourish. I think I am safe in saying that most students who read Kant do not find themselves to be having anything like a religious experience while doing so. What makes most people feel spiritually enlivened, I'm guessing, are things like love & hope & possibility, and not Plato & Kant & Mill.
Academics will better serve their students when they better understand student needs. And the quickest way to do this is to pay attention to what they spend their time doing: constructing & editing their MySpace & Facebook pages. MySpace or Facebook might seem like a foreign & irrelevant universe to academics but if they take the time to understand why these sites are so appealing to students they might better understand their students. MySpace & Facebook allow students a rare opportunity to express themselves; and to connect with distant and not so distant others; and they provide a unique way for students to produce & manage their private & social selves & worlds. If academics understood this then they might find better ways to understand & connect with students and, more generally, understand how contemporary individuals cope with contemporary realities. Discussions of common fears, hopes, & desires as well as discussions of contemporary ways of expressing & coping with common fears, hopes, & desires might prove more interesting & useful & satisfying than a seminar on The Republic, Critique of Pure Reason, or On Liberty (though these texts, of course, have their place as well). But if the university truly concentrated on basic real-world questions & how real people answered them then a university would cease to be a place that accredited people according to professional ability and instead a place that accredited people according to their value to each other and their community. And that, sadly, isn't a reality. The reality is that real life & real people simply do not get the respect that Plato & Kant & Mill do and that is why professors value & teach Plato & Kant & Mill and that students share not their own selves & thoughts but their critique of the great thinkers (whose realities & concerns may or may not coincide with their own). This overvaluing & overpraising classic texts & undervaluing & underpraising self can be dehumanizing. Status at the university level is conferred upon those who publish books & not upon those individuals who connect with students. The university used to attract an attractive type: the gentleman scholar with one foot in the library & one foot in the street. Nowadays most professors are seasoned professionals more attuned to the realities of their profession (which means the realities of publishing) than the realities of living & functioning in the world that most of us live & function in. To rehaul the university and make it a more inviting & enriching place to spend four or more years will take more than a return to basic questions, it will take a reconsideration of what it is we truly value about the humanities, how best to teach them, and what kind of people are best suited to take on this invaluable role.
All rights reserved. Amazon.com is a trademark of Amazon.com Information about prices, products, services and merchants is provided by third parties and is for informational purposes only. Caribbean Travel Books does not represent or warrant the accuracy or reliability of the information, and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.
