|
Home
Sermons
Sermons, Current
|
Aristotle’s
Folly
Vana
Prewitt, Ph. D
Presented at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of New Bern,
NC
November 27, 2011
I want to take you back in time to the fifth century
before the Christian era. Greece is awash with philosophical debates
attempting to explain the nature of the world, man and god. Firmly
polytheistic and mythical – the Greeks were not fond of Socrates who
insisted on pursing rational thought. Famous for creating the
Socratic method and engaging in long discourses on the ethics of Athenian
politicians he was eventually accused of impiety and sentenced to death by
hemlock.
His student, Plato, took up the threads of rational
philosophy, and created the first Academy. His student Aristotle studied
there 20 years before creating his own school, the Lyceum, upon the death
of his mentor. The legacy of the academy lives on today among
Academics worldwide, pursuing and perpetuating the philosophy of the
scientific method begun by Socrates.
These three philosophers are credited with founding
Occidental, or western, philosophy as we know it. However, keep in
mind that in their time, philosophy was not a science – that would come
later. Philosophy was a verbal debate or dialogue in which one or
more intellectuals engaged in creating hypotheses to explain the
inexplicable. Plato was an inductive thinker and believed that we
are born with all of our knowledge – the life offers us the opportunity
to re-collect it. Aristotle, however, was a deductive thinker and
believed all knowledge emerged from experience. With the scientific
method established by Socrates, we now have the holy trinity of western
logic tied up. A priori and evidence based research begins its 2500-year
evolution.
So, okay, where did Aristotle fail us? It’s clear
that he was into details and that looking at the whole, as was the habit
of his mentor, was an overwhelming task. Aristotle needed to break
down large complex fields of knowledge into more manageable sizes for
scientific study.
As many of you know, I’m a college professor of
business. As an academic, it is my responsibility to pass on and
perpetuate the traditions of theories, research, scholarly writings, and
the demigod of scientific inquiry. I struggle with the moral
reasoning and ethical practices of my profession. What my students
are expected to learn revolves around the minutia of management science
– a field of study barely a century old and one that is changing faster
than textbooks can keep pace with. What they need and I attempt to infuse
in and around the required lessons are critical thinking, fact finding,
communication skills, analysis, synthesis, idea generation, creativity,
emotional intelligence, flexibility, and navigating corporate politics.
These essential survival skills do not play a significant role in the
curriculum however.
Aristotle’s folly was in creating artificial
classifications that carved knowledge into four major groups. Before
his time, to know was to know – whether one knew music, a skill,
information, or how to philosophize. Knowledge
once classified evolves into a hierarchy, since some knowledge is valued
more than others. The legacy of this is what handicaps me today.
Aristotle defined the knowledge of physical skills,
such as carpentry, cooking, and blacksmithing as TECHNE.
It can also be said to
represent those gifted artistically, such as musicians, painters, and
dancers. This realm of Aristotle’s knowledge classification does
not even make it to the three attributed to wisdom – Sophia, Phronesis, and Episteme.
Sophia, you may recognize from the word philosophy – which literally
means the love of knowledge. Sophia represents the form of knowledge
most prized by philosophers since this is the realm of deep contemplation
about the nature of the universe. It is the type of wisdom that
comes from insight and mental discipline. It also ruled the world of
Academe for most the last 2500 years. Until quite recently, higher
education was reserved for the privileged elite.
Phronesis is the realm of knowledge known as
practical and applied. It is common sense and the type of knowledge
and wisdom that comes from experience.
Episteme is the knowledge and wisdom one acquires
from scientific inquiry. It is evidence base and supported with
proof. In Aristotle’s day, proof was not as physical as we
conceptualize in the 21st century but proof of logic and
rhetoric. Episteme today is firmly anchored in the scientific method and
makes no room for intuition, spiritual awareness, or gut instincts.
Aristotle’s classification of knowledge is damaging
because it values one form of knowledge and one inquiry approach over
another. It has led to a devaluation of people whose realm of wisdom
is in TECHNE and PHRONESIS and marginalizing opportunities for these wise
people. It has led us to pour our money, energies, and hopes into a
narrow band of knowledge at the risk of leaving the others undeveloped.
Until the mid-20th century, the academy
(or universities) was run largely by philosophers. An academy was a
place to consider large issues, a place to philosophize with other
philosophers. In the 21st century, most philosophy
departments have been abandoned as being too esoteric and not practical
enough for capitalist endeavors. These institutions are now viewed
as a place to develop employment skills, but the skills employers want are
not those I teach.
Critical thinking and analysis are far too
theoretical. Mastering office politics and emotional intelligence
are far too practical. So I continue to parade the scientific
research story in front of my students even though I know this is not what
would best serve them. I wish Aristotle and I could talk. I
think he might have some ideas for how to deconstruct the system he gave
birth to.
One thing I do know. There is a certain irony in knowing the GEEKS seem to
be inheriting the earth, moving TECHNE further up the value chain as
SOPHIA fades into the distance.
|
