My definition of a classical education is: The Liberal Arts and the Humanities.
Nowadays "humanism" usually means a human-centered approach to solving problems. It's a worldview in which the human is substituted for the divine - just pagan naval-gazing.
But before the modern era, and especially before the "enlightenment," humanism certainly did not mean what it does now.
As we look back in the history of education, we should have a common understanding of the term "humanism." Some people confuse it with Roman Catholic philosophy during the Renaissance era. Others mistake it for Protestant Reformed theology at the end of the Renaissance and call it the "New Learning." But humanism wasn't either of those.
A humanist was one who studied the humanities. His use and enjoyment of the humanities was humanism. During the 15th through 17th centuries, humanists had all sorts of theological views. The Renaissance was an explosion of humanist studies which went straight on through the Reformation and the Puritan era among theologians of all stripes. The Reformation and the Renaissance were certainly not opposing views of education, as some have implied. Rather, they were eras in which the humanities, or humanism, thrived. Humanism then was concentrated development of the unique faculties which humans possess and which animals do not. It was a recognition that God has created humans in His image and a working out of what that implies.
Rev. Dr. Jonathan Arnold gives a clear explanation of Renaissance humanism in his book, The Great Humanists.
Everything good is claimed by the unregenerate and wrongly ordered in some way. This includes art, language, church, marriage, and education. It is misleading to look at historical movements themselves as "good" or "bad" based on the loudest voices from that period that survive until now. Rather, every age has examples of ideas and educational models being put to good use by God's workmen, and good ideas being put to bad use by pagans. Often the problem with perversion isn't whether a thing is good or bad in and of itself, but in what order it falls in the affections of an individual's heart and mind. So Northern Renaissance humanism, as far it it aligns with Scripture, is to be hated when used to make a man idolize himself, but embraced when used for education and in its proper place, for the glory of God.
Alongside humanism are the liberal arts. These are tools of learning, and include grammar, logic, rhetoric, mathematics, physics, and (depending on the century) music, astronomy, or theology.
I will be delving into how the Puritans and earlier Reformers interacted with the humanities and the liberal arts, reforming and growing with them, as I blog through Ames's Technometry. These are not just interesting historical relics but models we ought to use in our own age.
Lastly, an article touching on the important work of a Christian Classical educator, also a Reformed humanist:
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/learning-from-nature
Nowadays "humanism" usually means a human-centered approach to solving problems. It's a worldview in which the human is substituted for the divine - just pagan naval-gazing.
But before the modern era, and especially before the "enlightenment," humanism certainly did not mean what it does now.
As we look back in the history of education, we should have a common understanding of the term "humanism." Some people confuse it with Roman Catholic philosophy during the Renaissance era. Others mistake it for Protestant Reformed theology at the end of the Renaissance and call it the "New Learning." But humanism wasn't either of those.
A humanist was one who studied the humanities. His use and enjoyment of the humanities was humanism. During the 15th through 17th centuries, humanists had all sorts of theological views. The Renaissance was an explosion of humanist studies which went straight on through the Reformation and the Puritan era among theologians of all stripes. The Reformation and the Renaissance were certainly not opposing views of education, as some have implied. Rather, they were eras in which the humanities, or humanism, thrived. Humanism then was concentrated development of the unique faculties which humans possess and which animals do not. It was a recognition that God has created humans in His image and a working out of what that implies.
Rev. Dr. Jonathan Arnold gives a clear explanation of Renaissance humanism in his book, The Great Humanists.
The studia humanitatis, a discipline embracing grammar, rhetoric, poetry, moral philosophy and history, involved the study of classical literature and languages, philology and the art of debate.Then he quotes Paul Kristeller:
'Humanists were not philosophers, but men and women of letters.'I will quote Arnold one last time although I would love to share more. His book is a great reference for the Renaissance era and the history of education.
Rather the Protestant reformers saw in humanist techniques a means by which they could profitably be put to that (preconceived) end, taking the humanist technique of 'ad fontes' (a return to the original sources) and using it for a reformation far beyond the rebirth, or Renaissance, desired by the humanists. Both Luther and Calvin fully embraced humanist education and culture.I mention all this for a couple of reasons. First, because a couple of misguided men have tried to tell us that a Reformed "mind" was opposed to the Renaissance "mind," and therefore we ought to reject classical education of the humanities and liberal arts since it was born prior to the Reformation. This view is unsupported by the writings of the Reformers themselves, and by modern historians as well. Second, hardly anyone knows what the humanities or the liberal arts are anymore, and what they are is worth knowing.
Everything good is claimed by the unregenerate and wrongly ordered in some way. This includes art, language, church, marriage, and education. It is misleading to look at historical movements themselves as "good" or "bad" based on the loudest voices from that period that survive until now. Rather, every age has examples of ideas and educational models being put to good use by God's workmen, and good ideas being put to bad use by pagans. Often the problem with perversion isn't whether a thing is good or bad in and of itself, but in what order it falls in the affections of an individual's heart and mind. So Northern Renaissance humanism, as far it it aligns with Scripture, is to be hated when used to make a man idolize himself, but embraced when used for education and in its proper place, for the glory of God.
Alongside humanism are the liberal arts. These are tools of learning, and include grammar, logic, rhetoric, mathematics, physics, and (depending on the century) music, astronomy, or theology.
I will be delving into how the Puritans and earlier Reformers interacted with the humanities and the liberal arts, reforming and growing with them, as I blog through Ames's Technometry. These are not just interesting historical relics but models we ought to use in our own age.
Lastly, an article touching on the important work of a Christian Classical educator, also a Reformed humanist:
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/learning-from-nature
Comments
Post a Comment