index file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages...

The University of St. Thomas Odyssey Program

Fall 2008

I. Course Description and Objectives:

Welcome to the Odyssey Program! “Odyssey” is a one-credit, first-semester class, consisting of one-hour, small-group discussions of an important text every Friday afternoon during the fall semester. The Odyssey Program is intended to help students achieve the following objectives:

Our hope is that first‑semester freshmen will: · become acquainted with university life; · become acquainted with Catholic higher education, and UST in particular; · begin to develop the skills that will facilitate their success at UST; · develop an understanding of and appreciation for the university core curriculum; · develop an appreciation of the different "ways of knowing" characteristic of each of the major disciplines and the methodology unique to a particular core discipline or area; · acquire strategies to improve reading, writing, and research competencies; · develop an understanding of the interrelationship across disciplines of the core curriculum; and · develop an understanding of and appreciation for the relevance of the core curriculum in preparing students for effective living.

II. What Will Be Expected of Students Each Week:

1. 25-35 pages of reading per week. 2. Completion of an on-line weekly reading quiz via Blackboard prior to class. 3. Attendance at weekly discussion sections. 4. Arrive at class with 3 possible questions for discussion. 5. A five-minute reflection paper at the end of each class.

III. List of Readings:

1. Josef Pieper, Leisure the Basis of Culture, tr. Gerard Malsbary (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 1998). 2. Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book: A Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972). 3. The Odyssey Reader (which will contain short selections from various sources, such as Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, Walker Percy’s Lost in the Cosmos, and Wendell Berry’s Home Economics).

As you can see from the “list of readings” above, and from the “calendar of sessions” below, the bulk of the semester will be dedicated to reading and discussing two major books: Josef Pieper’s Leisure, the Basis of Culture and Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren’s How to Read a Book. We are sending you a copy of both of these books by mail, along with a supremely useful study guide for each, so that you can get started on the reading this summer if you wish. The study guides will give you an idea of the kinds of

1 of 5 8/20/2008 3:26 PM index file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages...

questions that will be covered on the quizzes, as well as the kinds of topics that might arise in the course of the discussion sessions.

IV. Calendar of Sessions:

A) Who Am I? Where Am I From? And Where Am I Going?: The Student’s Search for Meaning

1. Wed, Aug 20: Dessert with Odyssey faculty members after dinner. 2. Thurs, Aug 21: Movie discussion: The Quarrel 3. Fri, Aug 22: Discussion on two PBS documentaries: People Like Us and The Merchants of Cool

* NB: There will be no on-line quizzes to take during the three Orientation sessions. But participation at the discussion sessions is mandatory. Faculty members will be taking attendance each week. (Let’s be clear; taking Weekly quizzes will commence next Friday morning, Aug 29, and continue throughout the remainder of semester.)

4. Fri, Aug 29: Reading and discussion of selections from Harvard professor Juliet Schor’s two books The Overworked American and The Overspent American. 5. Fri, Sept 5: Reading and discussion of short selections from Victor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, J. J. Van der Leeuw's "The Meaning of Life," and Linda Duval's article "Cranky? Darn Right We're Cranky!"

B) The Nature and Purpose of a Liberal Arts Education (And Its Relationship to the Student’s Search for Meaning)

6. Fri, Sept 12: Josef Pieper, Leisure, the Basis of Culture, ch. I 7. Fri, Sept 19: Josef Pieper, Leisure the Basis of Culture, ch. II 8. Fri, Sept 26: Josef Pieper, Leisure the Basis of Culture, ch. III 9. Fri, Oct 3: Josef Pieper, Leisure the Basis of Culture, ch. IV 10. Fri, Oct 10: Josef Pieper, Leisure the Basis of Culture, ch. V

C) Civic Engagement and Protecting the Environment

11. Fri, Oct 17: Wendell Berry, “Preserving Wildness,” from Home Economics (San Francisco: North Point Press, 1987), 137-151.

D) The Nature and Purpose of University-Level Reading and Research:

12. Fri, Oct 24: Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book, ch. I and ch. II (pp. 3-20), ch. III and IV (pp. 26-44). 13. Fri, Oct 31: Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book, ch. V and ch. VI (pp. 45-74). 14. Fri, Nov 7: Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book, ch. VII and ch. VIII (pp. 75-113). 15. Fri, Nov 14: Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book, ch. IX (pp. 114-136). 16. Fri, Nov 21: Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book, ch. X and ch. XI (pp. 137-167).

V. Grading:

2 of 5 8/20/2008 3:26 PM index file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages...

70% = Weekly Reading Quizzes and Blackboard Exercises 30% = Class Participation

This formula seems to put enough weight on the reading quizzes and Blackboard exercises so that students will take them seriously, while leaving enough weight on class participation to encourage them strongly to come to class and take part in the discussions.

VI. A Note Regarding On-Line Quizzes on Blackboard:

As mentioned above, students will be required to take an on-line reading quiz each week. This quiz will be made available to the students Friday morning before class and must be completed before 11 a.m. The quizzes will take you no longer than 15 minutes. That is to say, the quiz will take you no longer than 15 minutes because you will not be allowed more than 15 minutes to take it.

The way to prepare for these quizzes is to (A) do the reading (this is essential) and (B) look at the “Study Guide and Questions to Guide Your Reading.” Once you take a look at the Study Guide, don’t panic! Many of these questions suggest important things to think about; not all of them represent information to be tested. By no means will all of them be on the quiz.

The on-line quizzes will not be made up of essays. They will consist of fairly straightforward multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank, or true-false questions. Some of the “Questions to Guide Your Reading” will have as many as 20 long questions. Will all of these be on the quiz? No. What the quiz tests is whether you have read the text, not whether you have written out answers to all the “Questions to Guide Your Reading.” Indeed, you will not be required to write out answers to the “Questions to Guide Your Reading” and turn them in. But they will help you to prepare for the quizzes and the class discussions, so you should look them over in advance.

The weekly quizzes will appear on the University’s “Blackboard” system, which is a restricted-access system for which you will need a “user name” and “access code.” It will be important for you to learn to use this system and to get your user name and access code during the first evening of Orientation, if not before.

If you have trouble accessing the system, ask one of the several Information Technology people who will be available to answer questions on the first evening of Orientation. If you can’t access the Odyssey course on the “Blackboard” system, you won’t be able to take the quizzes. And if you don’t take the quizzes, you will get a big, fat zero on them, and there will be no make- up quizzes. But again, don’t panic. At the end of the semester, we will drop your three lowest quiz scores. So, if you miss a quiz (which can happen), then we will merely take that quiz as one of your low scores to be “knocked out.” It makes sense, however, to take all the quizzes if you can, so that your “low scores” will not be zeros.

VI. A Note Regarding Class Discussions:

My experience from past classes suggests that while students often find class discussions interesting, they also find them a bit frustrating, and this generally for two reasons. First, class discussions tend to wander around a lot; they don’t always develop logically from Point A to Point B to Point C. And second, they often don’t resolve the original question. On the contrary, good class discussions tend to raise more questions than they answer.

Let me take up the second of these problems first. Please understand, there is simply no way of resolving the kind of important issues we will be discussing in the roughly one hour we will be spending in class.

3 of 5 8/20/2008 3:26 PM index file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages...

What discussion in the classroom can do (at its best) is merely pique your interest – “wet your appetite,” as it were. The real conversations must take place after you leave the classroom – with your friends and family, late at night in coffee shops or bars, over a glass of red wine, good beer, or strong, dark coffee. Education either goes on outside of the classroom, or it does not go on at all. Our time is the classroom is simply too brief for anything more than an introduction to the issues. The kinds of issues we will be discussing are ones that require a lifetime’s worth of thought and discussion. But we can at least begin that much-needed discussion during our time together in class on Friday afternoons.

As for the other problem – that class discussions tend to wander around a lot – well, this is simply one of the normal characteristics of human conversations that distinguishes them from lectures and Power Point presentations. Conversations go where they go. No one (including the professor) can know in advance what questions or what insights might arise during the course of the hour. This is what makes them especially interesting: the hour is not “scripted.” That is why the faculty members often learn as much, if not more, than the students do in the course of the hour.

The benefit of a group discussion is that we all get the benefit of a lot of different questions and insights. The potential drawback of a group discussion, however, is that the airwaves can get clogged up with a few too many different questions and insights. When that happens, it’s easy to loose the “central thread” of the discussion. There’s a fine line to be walked between trying too hard to “control” the discussion too much, on the one hand, and allowing it to become utterly chaotic, on the other. And different people will have different degrees of tolerance for what other people might consider “chaos” or “control.” The results could get ugly if we’re not careful and generous with one another.

Sometimes students will get impatient with class discussions and will ask me something like this: “Can’t you stop calling on the stupid, boring people?” The answer to that question is no, but that’s because I deny the premise. Trust me, when your fellow students raise their hands, they are probably not saying to themselves: “Ooh, ooh, I want to make a stupid comment!” They undoubtedly think they have something valuable to add to the conversation. They may sometimes be wrong about that, but you still need to listen closely. There is a wise Old Testament passage that says: “Out of the mouths of fools and babes oft come words of wisdom.” (That, by the way, goes for professors too. We may often be foolish, but every now and then, we might actually say something worth listening to.)

There is only one real answer to the challenges of class discussion: Please listen to your classmates (this, by the way, is an absolute requirement of the class), and try to respond to what is being said.

Above all, you should be self‑aware enough to realize that it as difficult for everyone else in class as it is for you to make a point clearly and concisely in front of a large group of classmates. So please be patient with yourself and with everyone else – especially those people you consider to be annoyingly stupid. (Here’s a hint: They’re probably not – although they may think you are. Here’s another hint: If they do consider you annoyingly stupid, they’re probably as wrong about you as you would be about them.) The only reasonable thing to do, therefore, is to give everyone on all sides the benefit of the doubt. You needn’t agree with anyone else in the classroom – including the professor (what kind of discussion would it be if we all agreed about everything?) – but you must at least extend to others the courtesy you would wish extended to you. So let’s listen to each other with open minds and generous hearts and consider all sides fairly.

VII. A Final Important Note:

Finally, a very warm welcome to you all.

4 of 5 8/20/2008 3:26 PM Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 1

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book

Chapter 1: The Activity and Art of Reading

1. The author sets out on the first page of his book what the book is for. “This is a book for readers and for those who wish to become readers. Particularly, it for readers of books.” You are now entering into a university education, and a university education will involve reading a lot of books. That is one of the reasons we are having you read this book. So, in a sense, the author is describing you. “Even more particularly,” though, says the author, his book is for those whose main purpose in reading books is what?

* to gain increased understanding

2. “There is some feeling nowadays,” says Adler – and please note that by “nowadays,” he means 1940, when the book was originally written, which was before the U.S. entered World War II and long before most of your parents were born; but back then, a long, long time ago, in ages past, people somehow got this idea into their heads – “that reading is not as necessary as it once was.” Wow! They thought that way back then -- in 1940? Yes, they did. Why? Well, as Adler points out, because it was thought that, “Radio and especially television have taken over many of the functions once served by print.” Did they? If you were growing up in 1940's America and had thought to yourself: “Golly, I don’t need to learn to read; the new technologies of radio and television will replace the need to read by the time I get out of school,” would you have been right? Would you have found yourself well prepared for the last half of the Twentieth Century (sometimes called the beginning of the “Information Age”)?

3. As preparation for reading this book and this chapter, please read the article in your reader entitled “Literary Reading in Dramatic Decline According to National Endowment for the Arts Survey.” It is short and informative. What, according to the National Endowment for the Arts Survey, are some of the consequences of the low levels of reading in American society?

* Reading also affects lifestyle, the study shows. Literary readers are much more likely to be involved in cultural, sports and volunteer activities than are non-readers. For example, literary readers are nearly three times as likely to attend a performing arts event, almost four times as likely to visit an art museum, more than two-and-a-half times as likely to do volunteer or charity work, and over one-and-a-half times as likely to attend or participate in sports activities. People who read more books tend to have the highest level of participation in other activities.

The most important factor in literacy reading rates is education, the report shows. Only 14 percent of adults with a grade school education read literature in 2002. By contrast, more than five times as many respondents with a graduate school education - 74 percent - read literary works.

*Family income also affects the literary reading rate, though not as strongly as education. About one-third of the lowest income group - those with a family income under $10,000 - read literature during the survey year, compared with 61 percent of the highest income group - those with family income of $75,000 or more.

* The survey also studied the correlation between literary reading and other activities. For instance, literature readers watched an average of 2.7 hours of television each day, while people who do not read literary works watched an average of 3.1 hours daily. Adults who did not watch TV in a typical day are 48 percent more likely to be frequent readers - consuming from 12 to 49 books each year - than are those who watched one to three hours daily.

4. People have said for years (indeed, since at least 1940) that the previous “literary culture” is being replaced by a file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%201.html[8/20/2008 3:27:45 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 1

“visual culture” of images, such as those found on YouTube and, to a certain extent, on MySpace. In your reader, you will also find an article by painter Makoto Fujimura (Refractions 26: The Epistle of Van Gogh) who was on the advisory board of the NEA when they made their report on the decline in reading in America. “As an artist,” said Fujimura in an interview, “I am concerned that the declining attention span that has resulted from less reading has also affected the way people view and appreciate art. That is to say, they no longer have the concentration and the attention to view art with any appreciation.” Here is a brief excerpt from Fujimura’s article:

“The recent report on NEA's study on reading in America, "To Read or not to Read," depicts a dramatic erosion of America's reading habits. Not only does the report give us hard data on the steep decline of reading at all levels and age groups (except the pre-teen years ... call it the "Harry Potter effect,") but it substantiates an alarming trend of communal disengagement. We are not only reading less, we are reading less well: we are not only reading less well, we are losing our capacity to focus and pay attention to the world around us with empathy. As I thought about this as I perused the exhibit, van Gogh letters began inject in my psyche an antidote to the problems laid out in "To Read or not to Read." Vincent communicated in a foreign tongue with his acute sensitivity, and to impress upon the reader what he felt as sacred. The key word is "communicate," and the report points out the severe consequences if we continue to lose our capacity to communicate. We may, if we go down this road, no longer have the capacity to be moved by van Gogh or any other artist: we would not have the patience and longing in our hearts to do so.”

What if Fujimura is right about this? What if losing our ability to read actually results in our losing our ability to appreciate even visual images? So, for example, do you find yourself more able to concentrate on a single, important task after you’ve been spending a lot of time surfing the web, or less? (Are you sure you’re entirely aware of how long your attention span is? How long did it take you to read this chapter?)

One of the tests of how long your attention span is and how good your concentration will be whether or not you have been able to finish the reading for this class and move systematically through the “Questions to Guide Your Reading.” Have you? If not, did you blow off the reading by saying, “Yeah, well, that’s just a lot of boring crap”? Well, yes, perhaps. But then, lots of things you’ll be asked to read in life might seem (or be) boring – and not too infrequently, they’ll even be somewhat crappy. But you’ll have to do it anyway. Indeed, in this economy, changing as it does every four or five years, almost every employee at every company in the U.S. feels nearly constant pressure to update his or her skills or get re-educated in current technology. And that process unavoidably (I’m sorry to inform you) will involve lots of reading and study of written materials. Are you ready?

The good news is, reading is a skill – like playing poker – and it can be developed. The only question is, are you interested in developing that skill, or are you going to keep covering up your lack of skill by saying, “It’s too boring.” For people who don’t understand baseball or soccer or poker, the game is boring, because they can’t do it, and they don’t understand it. But for people who understand the game and appreciate the skill, this can be the introduction to a magical and very personal experience.

So, ask yourself this: If reading is necessarily going to be an important part of your life – that is, if you want to be increasingly successful in the current economy (I’m not saying that economic success is the most important goal you should have, but if it is one of your goals) – and if only people who understand and appreciate the skill of reading do it with any amount of ease and joy, then logically, what should your next step be? A trip to the video game console? [Here’s a hint: How many employers do you think train, or re-train, their employees using video game interfaces? Not many. Indeed, not any. And if you reply, “But in the future, they might do just that!” I’ll simply say: “Yes, and they told us we would be getting all our education on television by now when I was a kid.” (And trust me, I watched hours of television to prepare myself for the coming revolution.) Problem was, that didn’t happen. So, sure kid, video games and the internet: that’s all you’ll need to gain understanding and get a quality education in the Twenty-First Century. And I’ve got a wonderful bridge in Brooklyn for sale – very inexpensive.

Seriously. What skills do you really believe will serve you well in terms of success and quality-of-life over the next century of so? Think about it. The future begins now.

5. “There is a sense,” says Adler on p. 4 of his book, “in which we moderns are inundated with facts” to the detriment of what? What do you think? Has the situation gotten any better since 1940? Do you ever feel as though you are

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%201.html[8/20/2008 3:27:45 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 1

“inundated” with facts and information – say, about the War in Iraq or Global Warming or International Politics – but have precious little grasp of the whole picture?

* to the detriment of understanding

6. What, according to Adler, is “one of the reasons for this situation”?

* One of the reasons for this situation is that the very media we have mentioned are so designed as to make thinking seem unnecessary (though this is only an appearance). The media presents a whole “package” of intellectual positions and views – “all the way from ingenious rhetoric [or skillfully selected images] to carefully selected data and statistics” – to make it easy for him or her to “make up his own mind.” But the package is often done so effectively that the viewer does not make up his own mind at all, but merely accepts what has been spoon fed to him.

Active Reading

7. According to Adler, reading of any sort is an activity, but reading can be more or less active. Better reading is more – what – active or passive?

* active

8. On p. 5, Adler points out that, for many people: “Reading and listening are thought of as receiving communication from someone who is actively engaged in giving or sending it.” What is the mistake in this view? What analogy does Adler suggest to replace this image? What are the elements of the analogy? And at what point does the analogy break down?

* The mistake here is to suppose that receiving communication is like receiving a blow (that is to say, that it’s purely receptive, requiring nothing on the part of the receiver).

* “On the contrary, the reader or listener is much more like the catcher in a game of baseball. He is receiving the pitch, yes, but he is as active as the pitcher.

* The catcher must learn to catch all different sorts of pitches.

* The pitcher and catcher are successful only to the extent that they cooperate.

* BUT, the analogy breaks down because the ball is a simple unit: it is either completely caught or not, whereas one’s grasp of a text can be more or less.

The Goals of Reading: Reading for Information and Reading for Understanding

9. What is the distinction between “reading for information” and “reading for understanding”? Does the distinction make sense to you? That is to say, do you understand that not all reading is “reading for information”? (Which, by the way, is the reason not all lectures can be done in Power Point presentations: Because not all lectures are primarily about communicating information. More often, they are about trying to increase understanding. Which, by the way, is the reason not all tests can be fill-in-the-blank or multiple choice. These kinds of questions merely test your stock of information. To demonstrate understanding, you need to write essays or give oral presentations.)

Reading as Learning: The Difference Between Learning by Instruction and Learning by Discovery

10. On p. 11, Adler remarks that, “Getting more information is learning, and so is coming to understand what you did file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%201.html[8/20/2008 3:27:45 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 1

not understand before. But there is an important difference between these two kinds of learning.” What is the difference?

* To be informed is to know simply that something is the case. To be enlightened is to know, in addition, what it is all about: why it is the case, what its connections are with other facts, in what respects it is the same, in what respects it is different, and so forth.

* Enlightenment is achieved only when, in addition to knowing what an author says, you know what he means and why he says it.

11. Let’s think about this statement a bit more: “To be informed is to know simply that something is the case. To be enlightened [that is, to understand something that you did not understand before] is to know, in addition, what it is all about: why it is the case, what its connections are with other facts, in what respects it is the same, in what respects it is different, and so forth.” How does Mortimer Adler’s notion of “understanding” compare to Josef Pieper’s description of intellectus (understanding)? How do both compare to the following statement from Pope John Paul II’s document Ex Corde Ecclesiae: “Integration of knowledge is a process, one which will always remain incomplete; moreover, the explosion of knowledge in recent decades, together with the rigid compartmentalization of knowledge within individual academic disciplines, makes the task increasingly difficult.... [But] university scholars [should] be engaged in a constant effort to determine the relative place and meaning of each of the various disciplines within the context of a vision of the human person and the world....”

* For both, “understanding” is something that involves seeing the part in terms of the whole. (Man is capax universi: has the capacity to grasp the whole.)

* Pieper puts more emphasis on “understanding” being non-discursive (not the result of a dialectical process). And Adler puts more emphasis (in this passage) on seeing the “connections with other facts.”

* Pope John Paul II deepens that idea of “seeing the connections” to the integration of all knowledge and suggests that students should be engaged in a constant effort to determine the relative place and meaning of each of the various disciplines within the larger context of a Catholic vision of the nature of the human person and the world.

* Thus we might say that, “understanding” – in the sense of “seeing the connections within the context of a vision of the whole – is something that should be going on both within one’s education as a whole and each time one picks up and reads a book.

12. At the top of p. 12, Adler distinguishes two types of literary ignorance. The first he calls (following the Sixteenth- Century French writer Michel de Montaigne) “abecedarian ignorance” – that is, someone who does not know his or her ABC’s. (Take ABCD, make it into a word, put “arian” on the end of it, and what do you get? Abecedarian.) What is the second type of ignorance? What name did the Greeks have for this sort of person (one who mixes learning and folly)?

* the ignorance of those who have misread many books

* sophomore (sophos = wise; moron = fool)

13. What is the distinction Adler makes between “learning by instruction” and “learning by discovery”? Why does the first depend upon the second? (Adler answers this question.) Why is it important in your education that you not only develop the ability to “learn by instruction,” but also the ability to “learn by discovery”? (Adler does not answer this question directly, but you should be able to figure it out from what he says.) What kinds of assignments do you suppose a college or university ought to assign if it wanted to help its students gain the ability to “learn by discovery”? List at least three.

* Instruction occurs when one person teaches another through speech or writing. We can, however, gain knowledge without being taught. If this were not the case, and every teacher had to be taught what he in turn teaches others, there would be no beginning in the acquisition of knowledge.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%201.html[8/20/2008 3:27:45 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 1

* Hence there must be discovery – the process of learning something by research, by investigation, or by reflection, without being taught.

* Students must not only “learn by instruction” but also “learn by discovery” because (A) there will not always be instructors around – especially as they leave the warm embrace of school. And (B) Because, as Adler points out: “A doctor may do many things for his patient, but in the final analysis it is the patient himself who must get well – grow in health. The farmer does many things for his plants or animals, but in the final analysis it is they that must grow in size and excellence. Similarly, although the teacher may help his student in many ways, it is the student himself who must do the learning. Knowledge must grow in his mind if learning is to take place.”

* Kinds of assignments?: research projects and presentations; laboratory experiments; field research (as in Environmental Science); undergraduate research day

14. Consider the following passage from your text (pp. 12-13): “A doctor may do many things for his patient, but in the final analysis it is the patient himself who must get well – grow in health. The farmer does many things for his plants or animals, but in the final analysis it is they that must grow in size and excellence. Similarly, although the teacher may help his student in many ways, it is the student himself who must do the learning. Knowledge must grow in his mind if learning is to take place.” What do you think about this comparison? Do you think Adler is right? If so, what would that imply about who is ultimately responsible for each student’s education? (Does the old saying “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” make any sense to you?)

* each student is responsible for his or her own education; teachers can teach, but students must do the learning, or else nothing happens

15. Why, according to Adler, do many people “regard thinking as more closely associated with research and unaided discovery than with being taught”? What is Adler’s response? What do you think? Do you think that there may be a possibility that, contrary to what you may previously have assumed, reading and listening are not thoughtless, effortless, passive activities, and that they involve many of the same active skills that are involved in the art of unaided discovery?

* Because they suppose reading and listening to be relatively effortless.

* But, insists Adler, reading and listening are not thoughtless, effortless, passive activities

* The art of reading (and we might add, the art of listening) involves all of the same skills that are involved in the art of unaided discovery.

Present and Absent Teachers

16. What is the difference between “listening” (say, to a live lecture) and “reading” – especially when it comes to questions?

* If you are puzzled by what a teacher says, you can ask him what he means. If, however, you ask a book a question, you must answer it yourself. When you question it, it answers you only to the extent that you do the work of thinking and analysis yourself.

17. Does this distinction imply that, when a teacher answers your questions, you can be more passive than when reading? Or is there still a sense in which, when the teacher answers your question, you still must answer it yourself? (Here’s a hint: Ultimately no, listening to a teacher should not be purely passive. Listening to a lecture should as critical and analytical an activity as reading a book, which should be as critical and analytical as any research you do in the lab or in the field. We, contrary to the expectations of many students who come to college, are not merely trying to jam a lot of “stuff” into your head under the threat of expulsion: “Be ready to spit this information back at me on demand, or face termination.” We want you to question. We want you to think. We fight students on this score file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%201.html[8/20/2008 3:27:45 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 1

more than on anything else. They hate us when we ask them to question and to think. Consider for a moment: Of all these “Questions to Guide Your Reading” you’ve been doing now for the past several weeks, which are the ones that annoyed you the most? The ones that asked you straightforwardly to memorize and spit back something from the book? Or the longer ones that asked you to question and to think? My experience has been that students are bored by the memorize-and-spit-back questions, but they rely on them to “get the grade.” And although they are sometimes intrigued (“interested” might be too strong a word) by the longer questions that demand critical engagement with the text, they generally skip over them as “pointless” or else find them downright annoying.

Perhaps our notions that reading is largely passive and that education in general is meant to be largely passive are not so unrelated as we might suppose. Perhaps both are related to the mistaken notion that “education” is primarily about the communicating of “information,” rather than about empowering students to learn, think, discover, and answer questions for themselves — a mistaken notion about education, by the way, that lies behind the sophomoric notion that education can be imparted by computers, or television, or radio, or any other purely passive medium. Ask yourself this: Once the computer answers you question, must you still answer the question for yourself. In other words, once the information appears on the computer screen or on the written page, is there still work to be done to understand what you are reading?)

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%201.html[8/20/2008 3:27:45 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book

Chapter 2: The Levels of Reading

1. Note that in the first paragraph of this chapter, Adler gives the reader a nice summary of what was covered in chapter 1. This is not an uncommon practice. You should keep it in mind whenever you read to look for convenient “summaries” of the contents. One good place to look is the “Preface” or “Introduction” to the book. Another is the beginning of chapters. Did you grasp everything from the previous chapter that Adler summarizes in the first paragraph of this chapter? If not, why not?

2. What are Adler’s four levels of reading? Please describe each level and indicate the goal of the reader when he or she is reading at that level.

(i) Elementary Reading:

* Question the reader asks: “What does the sentence say?”

* Goal: Just to understand what the author is saying.

(ii) Inspectional Reading:

* Aim: To get the most out of a book within a given time – usually a relatively short time, and always (by definition) too short a time to get out of the book everything that can be gotten.

* Other names: skimming, pre-reading; but not casual or random browsing – better: the art of skimming systematically

* Question the reader asks: What is the book about? What is its structure? What are its parts? What kind of book is it (novel, history, scientific treatise, philosophy)?

(iii) Analytical Reading:

* Other names: thorough reading, complete reading. Some books are to be tasted; others are to be chewed and digested.

* The reader asks many questions.

* Aim or Goal: Analytical reading is preeminently for the sake of understanding.

(iv) Syntopical or Comparative Reading:

* Having read a number of books, the reader places them in relation to one another and to a subject about which they all revolve.

* NB: We will not be spending any time in this course on Syntopical Reading; we will focus attention only on the first three levels. We just don’t have enough time given our course constraints. But the students are of course free to read that section at the end on their own. We will have finished every other section up to that one.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:27:41 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:27:41 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3-4

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book Chapter 4: The Second Level of Reading: Inspectional Reading

NB: A few comments first about chapter 3 on “The First Level of Reading: Elementary Reading”:

Please note that, to save time, we are skipping chapter 3. In it, Adler first gives a brief historical introduction to certain contemporary theories about how children learn to read. In what follows, he gives his own description of the “four more or less clearly distinguishable stages in the child’s progress toward what is called mature reading ability.” You are free to read and review this material on your own. For our purposes, there are only the following two points from this chapter I would wish to bring your attention. First, after describing the fourth and final stage of elementary reading, wherein the student “is now capable of reading almost anything, but still in a relatively unsophisticated manner,” Adler makes the following important comment: “We mention all this because it is highly germane to the message of this book. We assume – we must assume – that you, our reader, have attained ninth grade literacy, that you have mastered the elementary level of reading....” In this course, we too have made and will continue to make that assumption. And here is where you, the student, may need to take an extra degree of responsibility for yourself. If, upon self-reflection, you realize that you simply can’t read English prose adequately, even at an elementary level – that is to say, you cannot get through a page of text without having to look up numerous words or phrases in the dictionary – then you need to ask for extra help. What do I mean by looking up “numerous words or phrases”? Look, almost everyone has certain words on a page he or she may not know. But most of us are still able to understand what is being said from context. We fill in the meaning of the unknown word. If you simply cannot do that, or if you are going to the dictionary more than five or six times per page, then you should seek out extra help.

See Adler on p. 31. Please understand, there should be no shame in this. Sometimes the problem has been the result of a poor education system (which is certainly not your fault); sometimes it has been the result of the fact that English may not be your native language (which is not a “fault” at all). But it is our job to set you up for success, not failure. And one of the things you will undoubtedly have noticed already is that a university education involves a lot of reading. If you can’t do it, then we are merely setting you up for failure, and we don’t want to do that. So, for example if English is not your native language, there is absolutely no reason to feel ashamed. You can’t even begin to imagine how badly I or most of my colleagues would do if we were forced to take classes in Spanish, German, Vietnamese, or Mandarin. The results would be tragic. But be that as it may, you are asking us to prepare you for civic life and professional vocations within an English-speaking culture. Not having the ability to read and write literate English prose is as crippling in this society as it would be crippling not to know German in Germany or Italian in Italy. I know, I’ve been to both places, and my German and Italian are terrible. And don’t even get me started about trying to use my terrible Spanish when I visited Spain. All of these countries were spectacularly beautiful and the people endlessly fascinating, but it was deeply frustrating not to be able to communicate with them in the depth and to the degree I wanted because of my inability to speak the language. And Lord only knows what sort of job I could have been hired for in any of these countries. I’m not sure I would have been qualified even to teach English — unless I had been assigned to help refine the English of people who already spoke English. So don’t let a bad education happen to you. If you need remedial reading instruction, ask for it. If you learn nothing else from the first part of this book it should be that education must be largely an active process on your part, and not, as many people suppose, purely passive. So here is your first “warning” or “disclaimer” of the course: The kind of instruction and the kind of assignments we will be doing from here on out will not help you very much if you haven’t attained that first elementary level of reading. Get that help if you need it, and then you’ll be able to get much more out of this book and its assignments. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203-4.html[8/20/2008 3:27:48 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3-4

That brings us to our second point. For those of you who have attained a ninth-grade level of reading (or better), you may be asking yourself: “Why am I reading a book about reading? I know how to read.” Well, yes and no. As Adler points out on p. 28 of his text, reading instruction beyond the elementary level is rarely offered in U.S. high schools, and even more rarely in colleges and universities. These are skills that colleges and universities often presume the students have when they arrive on campus, even though this is rarely the case. By requiring you to read this book, we are simply trying to “live in the real world,” so to speak, and deal realistically with the students we actually have, and not rely on the kind of skills that very few students actually possess. Again, we are trying to set you up for success, not “bury our heads in the sand” and then express “surprise” and “amazement” when some of you fail. If you doubt my comment that “very few students actually possess” the kind of reading skill they need to be successful, just take a look at the following comment on p. 29 of Adler’s book:

“A good liberal arts high school, if it does nothing else, ought to produce graduates who are competent analytical readers. A good college, if it does nothing else, ought to produce competent syntopical readers. A college degree ought to represent general competence in reading such that a graduate could read any kind of material for general readers and be able to undertake independent research on almost any subject.... Often, however, three of four years of graduate study are required before students attain this level of reading ability, and they do not always attain it even then.”

And remember, Adler wrote this book originally in 1940, when high schools and colleges in this country were doing an appreciably better job than they tend to do now: So trust us: there are skills covered in this book that you can learn to your benefit — skills that many of your counterparts at other colleges and universities will not be getting. We wouldn’t be doing it if we weren’t convinced doing it will help you to succeed both here, in school, and later in life. And for those of you whose first reaction to the book is, “But this is all just common sense, “ again, just trust us. As the old saying goes, “common sense is not all that common.” Tiger Woods became the best golfer in the world by mastering the basics, and then re-mastering and re-mastering them again and again and again. (He’s re-tooled his swing three times.) The first step to wisdom is realizing you may have something to learn. And you will almost never go wrong by going back to the basics and re- mastering them. On that note, let’s move on to chapter 4 and Professor Adler’s discussion of the “second level of reading”: namely, “inspectional reading.

1. According to Prof. Adler, the first thing to realize about inspectional reading, is that there are two types of inspectional reading. What are they? (This question will force you to look ahead in the book; that is to say, it will force you to do what the chapter is trying to teach you to do: “skim,” “pre-read.”) * Inspectional Reading 1: Systematic Skimming or Pre-Reading * Inspectional Reading 2: Superficial Reading (starts on p. 36)

Inspectional Reading 1: Systematic Skimming or Pre-Reading 2. With regard to the first – that is, “skimming” or “pre-reading” – what are the six suggestions Prof. Adler gives on how to do it? * (i) Look at the title page and, if the book has one, at its preface * (ii) Study the table of contents. Look over the chapters and all the various parts and sub-headings into which the text has been divided. * (iii) Check the index [or bibliography] to get a quick idea of the range of topics and the kinds of books the author is referring to. * (iv) Read the publisher’s blurb [or a check a good book review]. * (v) Look now at the chapters that seem to be pivotal to the argument of the book. Check to see whether there are “summary statements” at the beginning and/or end of the chapters. * (vi) Finally, turn the pages, dipping in here and there, reading a paragraph or two, sometimes several pages in sequence, looking for signs of the main argument. Also, do not fail to read the last few pages of the book, looking for a summary or conclusion.

Inspectional Reading 2: Superficial Reading 3. The second sort of inspectional reading is what Prof. Adler calls “superficial reading.” What does he mean by file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203-4.html[8/20/2008 3:27:48 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3-4

“superficial reading”? What, in other words, is the “important helpful rule of reading that is generally overlooked”? * That rule is simply this: In tackling a difficult book for the first time, read it through without ever stopping to look up or ponder the things you do not understand right away. * Pay attention to what you can understand and do not be stopped by what you cannot immediately grasp. Go right on reading past the point where you have difficulties in understanding, and you will soon come to things you do understand. Concentrate on these. Don’t miss the forest for the trees.

4. Adler makes a rather odd, perhaps even disturbing comment at the bottom of p. 36 and top of p. 37. On these two pages, he recommends the following: “If you let yourself get stalled ... you are lost. In most cases, you will not be able to puzzle the thing out by sticking to it. [And here is the disturbing part.] You will have a much better chance of understanding it on a second reading, but that requires you to have read the book through at least once.” A second reading? What in the world could he be talking about? You read a book, you’re done, you throw it away. Right? Why would anyone read a book a second time? I mean, you already know how it ends! Well, that is the difference between “great books” and “cheap, trashy novels”: you can read a “great book” over and over and over again, getting more out of it each time. With “cheap, trashy novels,” it’s like hearing the punch-line of a joke or the answer to a riddle: once you know the ending, the thing has been drained of whatever interest it might have had. So yes, many of the books that we ask you to read will require a second or third or even a lifetime’s worth of reading. Not all of them, mind you, but some of them. So, for example, Dr. Hittinger (the Vice President for Academic Affairs of the University) had a professor when he was an undergraduate – a legendary Notre Dame scholar by the name of Joseph Evans – who would re-read Josef Pieper’s Leisure, the Basis of Culture every single year. But as Prof. Adler points out, “you will have a much better chance of understanding a book on a second reading, but that requires you to have read the book through at least once.” This problem comes up all the time for instructors. People will say to us: “But students can’t understand everything in that book. It’s too hard for them.” The presumption here is that, if a student can’t understand everything in a book, then he or she shouldn’t be asked to read it. But that would be like saying, if a student can’t paint like Picasso, she shouldn’t be asked to draw. Or if a student can’t play tennis like Roger Federer, he shouldn’t be asked to work on his back-hand. Of course there are things you won’t be able to do – at first – when you come to college. If you understood everything perfectly and had all the skills you needed, you wouldn’t be paying us all this money to teach you, now would you? Your skills need to be developed. But as any great coach will tell you, you shouldn’t practice with opponents who are worse than you, whom you can beat easily. Rather, you should challenge yourself as often as possible against opponents who are better than you. The trick, of course, is finding an opponent who is just enough better to challenge you, and not so much better that the game is a blow-out. And that is our job too. We will try to challenge you with books that are more difficult than anything you’ve read in the past, but are not so difficult that you won’t be able to understanding anything. In reading, sometimes you’ll be getting books that are like playing tennis against your little sister. Other times, you might find yourself with a book that’s like playing tennis against John McEnroe (nothing but trouble). But just remember: it’s the hard, challenging books that make you better, not the easy ones. The same is true for all sorts of things: you need to persevere if you want to get anywhere. Nothing worth doing can be done without discipline. So please, don’t come to us whining: “But that book you assigned was hard. I didn’t understand it.” Yes, this is college. It’s called education. Get used to it. This is what you’re paying us for: to help you become better, not for us to stroke your ego. So, when you are assigned a difficult book, don’t get bogged down. Get through the whole thing once, and then repeat as necessary. Do your skimming and outlining. Try to get the main ideas. And then go back and see whether the difficult passages make sense. If you’re still having trouble, ask for help. That is what professors are for. We genuinely want to help, but (A) we can’t always tell who needs help, and (B) we’re not going to beg. In college, you are given much more freedom than you were in high school. But along with that freedom comes more responsibility. If you’re not getting it, you need to ask for help. One more comment. Adler’s comment about not getting bogged down when you’re faced with a difficult reading assignment is almost always true of writing assignments as well. Students have this strange notion that they are supposed to “give birth” to written essays the way Athena was given birth by Zeus: streaming forth directly from their heads into finished form. It doesn’t happen. It hasn’t worked that way for most great writers, and it probably won’t happen that way for you. Take, for example, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s famous book The Great Gatsby. According to Fitzgerald himself, there isn’t a line in that book that hasn’t been re-written at least fifteen times. Numerous studies have shown, moreover, that success in writing comes from re-writing. Don’t expect to produce an acceptable piece of literate prose unless you’ve done at least three drafts of it. The days of churning out a paper the night before (or the file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203-4.html[8/20/2008 3:27:48 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3-4

hour before) class need to be over. But in order to get to drafts two and three, you have to finish draft one. So allow yourself to write the first draft fairly freely, not stopping to edit yourself every sentence. There will be time enough for that when you go back and re-read your paper (Read my own writing? Is he kidding?) and revise it. You will have much more pleasure (and success) reading and writing if you “don’t sweat the small stuff” and instead focus on the important points. With regard to reading, that is what “inspectional reading” is meant to help you to do. Now, a question. On p. 37, Adler suggests that, “The tremendous pleasure that can come from reading Shakespeare, for instance, was spoiled for generations of high school students who were forced to go through Julius Caesar, As You Like It, or Hamlet, scene by scene, looking up all the strange words in a glossary and studying all the scholarly footnotes. As a result, they never really read a Shakespearean play. By the time they reached the end, they had forgotten the beginning and lost sight of the whole.” Were you one of those students for whom Shakespeare was spoiled by this sort of pedantic approach? Or did you get to p. 10 and quit because, “This is too boring”? Does Adler’s advice seem helpful to you?

On Reading Speeds 5. On p. 38 of his book, Prof. Adler asks: “What about speed reading?” Good question. What does he say about speed reading? What is the speed at which you should read? * With regard to rates of reading, then, the ideal is not merely to be able to read faster, but to be able to read at different speeds – and to know when the different speeds are appropriate.” * It is wasteful to read a book slowly that deserves only a fast reading; * Some books should be read quickly; and a few should be read at a rate, usually quite slow, that allows for complete comprehension. * “A good speed reading course should teach you to read at many different speeds, not just one speed that is faster than anything you can manage now. It should enable you to vary your rate of reading in accordance with the nature and complexity of the material.

Fixations and Regressions 6. What are “fixations” and “regressions” in reading? * Fixations: When the eye “fixates” as it moves across the line of text. * Regressions: Re-reading the line or part of a line one has already read. * Yes, these slow down reading dramatically, and these problems can be removed by “speed-reading techniques.” In fact, curing these problems is the trick to speed reading.

The Problems of Comprehension 7. What is the key to good comprehension while speed reading? [Hint: There is none. What do you have to do instead of “speed reading” everything?] * The problem of speed reading is the problem of comprehension. That is to say, you need to know which things can be read over quickly, and which need to be read more slowly. * For real understanding, you need to read analytically.

Summary of Inspectional Reading 8. What does Adler mean when he says: “There is no single right speed at which you should read”? * The ability to read at various speeds and to know when each speed is appropriate is the ideal. * The formula: Every book should be read no more slowly than it deserves, and no more quickly than you can read it with satisfaction and comprehension. * Don’t be afraid to race through even the hardest book. You will then b e prepared to read it well the second time.

9. At the end of the chapter, Prof. Adler strives to connect the two different types of inspectional reading discussed in this chapter with the two different types of analytical reading, which will be discussed in later chapters. According to Prof. Adler, systematic skimming serves to prepare the analytical reader to be able to do what? Superficial reading serves to prepare the analytical reader to be able to do what? (NB: You may not fully understand these two stages of analytical reading right now, but they will make more sense when we get to them in later chapters. Right now, just remember that there is a paragraph here at the end of this chapter to which you might want to return when we get to the section on analytical reading, so that you can see the connections between inspectional reading and analytical reading.) file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203-4.html[8/20/2008 3:27:48 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3-4

* Systematic skimming serves to prepare the analytical reader to analyze the book’s structure. * Superficial reading is the first necessary step in the interpretation of a book’s contents.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203-4.html[8/20/2008 3:27:48 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book Chapter 5: How To Be A Demanding Reader

1. Have you experienced the situation Prof. Adler describes on p. 45 of his book – namely, you get a book with all the best intentions in the world of reading it from cover to cover; you sit down in a pleasant place with your book in hand, open to the first page, and before you’ve reached the bottom of that page, you’re fast asleep? We all have. Indeed, as I sit writing this, I am looking at a good friend of mine, a gifted Dominican scholar who has an endowed chair at a leading university in Switzerland, who has come to this coffee shop with me so that both of us can “get some work done.” He is sitting in a chair and has dozed off reading St. Augustine’s City of God, a book I know he admires greatly. It happens to the best of us. But, you can’t get the benefits of reading if you can’t stay awake. And as Prof. Adler points out: “Whether you manage to keep awake or not depends in large part on your goal in reading.” What is Prof. Adler’s advice on how best to “stay awake” and get the most out of your reading? (Hint: My Dominican friend is not only sitting in an overstuffed chair, which might have been fine at other times of the day, but not at 11:30 p.m, and he brought a book to read for “general interest.” I, on the other hand, am sitting at a table typing out sentences from this book on my computer because if I don’t finish this set of questions sometime soon, the Vice President for Academic Affairs will have my head on a platter.) * Read “as actively as possible.” * You have to know how to be a demanding reader, how to keep your mind on what you are doing by making it do with work without which no profit can be earned.

The Essence of Active Reading: The Four Basic Questions a Reader Asks 2. What, according to Prof. Adler, is the “one simple prescription for active reading?” * It is: Ask questions while you read – questions that you yourself must try to answer in the course of reading.

3. According to Prof. Adler, what are the four basic questions a reader (that would be you) should ask about any book?

* (i) What is the book about as a whole? - leading theme; how the author develops the theme in an orderly way by subdividing it into its essential subordinate themes or topics * (ii) What is being said in detail, and how? - main ideas, assertions, arguments * (iii) Is the book true, in whole or in part? - you ask the first two questions first; but then you must ask the third - Remember: “Seek first to understand, and then to be understood. * (iv) What of it? (That is to say, who would care and why? If this book is true, what difference would it make? Be careful: If it is a famous book, it probably has made a difference to a lot of people. You question should be: why? Or perhaps: What are they seeing that I’m not?)

4. According to Prof. Adler, what is the “mark of a demanding reader”? * Not only knowing the four questions, but remembering to ask them as you read. The habit of asking these questions as you read is the mark of a demanding reader.

How To Make A Book Your Own

5. What, according to Prof. Adler, is the best way to “make a book your own”? Another way of asking the same question is this: According to Prof. Adler: “Full ownership of a book only comes when you have made it a part of file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:27:50 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

yourself.” What is the best way to make yourself a part of the book? How does Adler’s advice about “making a book your own” help with this problem of “staying awake”? * WRITE in it. * Why is marking in a book indispensable to reading it? First, it keeps you awake – not merely conscious, but wide awake. Second, reading should be active. Third, writing your reactions down helps you to remember the thoughts of the author.

6. What does Adler mean when he says that “understanding is a two-way operation”? * the learner has to question himself and question the teacher. * He even has to be willing to argue with the teacher, once he understands what the teacher is saying. Marking a book is literally an expression of your differences or your agreements with the author. It is the highest respect you can pay him.

7. Let’s think for a moment about the following comment (from p. 49): “the learner has to question himself and question the teacher. He even has to be willing to argue with the teacher, once he understands what the teacher is saying.” He means that metaphorically, right? I mean, you’re not supposed to question or argue with an actual classroom teacher, are you? Wrong. Most of the advice Adler is giving about reading could be transferred to taking notes in class. Taking notes in class is vital because it means you are engaging in active listening. Taking notes in class should be as active a process as reading. Indeed, even more so. Because you can actually ask questions. But even if you don’t ask your questions out loud, in front of everyone – and there are times when, due to the nature of the class, interrupting to ask a question would not be entirely appropriate – even so, you should always be asking questions in your notes. Your notes should not be a mere word-for-word transcript of what the professor has said; you should make an outline or take summary notes. Write down enough to jog your memory about what was said, but not every word. Along with your summary notes, however, you should also be writing down your questions or comments. Taking notes this way will not only help your retention and comprehension, it will keep you awake during class! When your professor gets to the end of a class period, if he were to ask: “Does anyone have any questions about anything we’ve covered today?” you should be able to flip back through your notes and find one within seconds. If you don’t have a question, you haven’t been listening. Contrary to what many students seem to think, we are not interested in stuffing you full of a lot of our own brilliant ideas. Now granted, there’s no question but that most of the faculty have the “gift of gab.” We can talk on and on and on. That’s why we became teachers: so we could sit around all day reading books and gabbing with people (our usual past-times) and actually get paid for it. It’s a scandal really. Be that as it may, there is not one of us who looks upon teaching as getting you to swallow what we’re spoon-feeding you. That’s boring for you and miserable for us. We want you to learn to question and to think for yourselves. Just as marking up a book with questions and comments is “the highest respect you can pay” an author, so too marking up your notebook with questions and comments is the highest respect you can pay your professors. We want for you to engage with the material, not just suck it up and regurgitate it on demand. Trust me, no faculty member wants a class full of “yes-men” or students silent as the Sphinx. Most of us really enjoy the give-and-take of challenging questions and arguments – if, that is, the questions are respectful and thoughtful, and not just disruptive. Nobody likes a brown-nosing suck-up. But then again, it’s not particularly productive to have a student in class who replies whenever called upon with: “I hate this book; hate it, hate it, hate it;” or, “This book, and this class, are soooo boring;” or “Huh? What was the question again?” or “O-my-god, Thomas Aquinas is, like, some kind of Stalinist Nazi or something – like, I don’t even get what he’s saying. Why can’t he just speak English or something? (Answer: he was Italian, wrote in Latin, and lived in the Thirteenth Century, and you can’t be both a Stalinist and a Nazi.) So let me repeat: Marking up your notebook with questions and comments is the highest respect you can pay your professors. And if you don’t have questions after a lecture, you haven’t been listening. Here is my question. You’ve been reading books and articles now for this class for several weeks. Do any of them have any pencil marks in them? Any questions or comments? If I were to look at your copy of this page of questions, would I see writing on it? Or would the paper be as clean and white as the day it slid out of the copy machine?

8. What are the kinds of markings you can make in a book that are useful for helping you to read a book intelligently? On a related point: Why do you suppose it is better to make all your notes and comments in the book itself, rather than file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:27:50 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

in a separate notebook? * (i) underlining * (ii) vertical lines at the margin * (iii) star or asterisk or some other marginal notation * (iv) numbers in the margin * (v) cross-reference to other pages where the author makes a similar point * (vi) circling of key words or phrases * (vii) writing in the margins * Why make notes in the book? You’ll lose a separate notebook.

The Three Kinds of Note-Making 9. What are the three different kinds of notes that you can make in your books as well as about them? (By the way, this is the third or fourth list you’ve been offered so far in this book. Are you keeping track of them? Have you, for example, begun to write each one of them down in the front end-pages of the book for easy reference later on? If not all of them, at least the ones you consider especially useful? If not, why not? Do you think you’ll really want to go leafing through all the pages of the book looking for a particularly list when you need it sometime in the future? And even if you don’t think you’ll ever want to refer to any of these lists in the future, what about books and subjects that you will be tested on? Would writing down important points in the front and back of the book be useful for easier reviewing for tests?) * (i) Structural - what kind of book is it? What is it about as a whole? What is the structural order of the work? * (ii) Conceptual - the truth and significance of the book * (iii) Dialectical - putting this book into a dialogue with others on a similar or related topic

Forming the Habit of Reading 10. As Prof. Adler points out: “There is no other way of forming a habit [or gaining a skill] of operation” other than what? * by operating. One learns by doing. * Knowing the rules of an art is not the same as having the habit. (But then again, you cannot follow rules you do not know.)

From Many Rules to One Habit 11. In this section, Prof. Adler makes an analogy between learning to ski and learning to read. Please explain the comparison. Now consider this: Have you ever tried to learn to ski? Or play tennis? Or chess? Or pretty much any other complex skill? Does Adler’s comparison make any sense to you? Do you understand what he means about the relationship between the “rules” and “the habit”? How about the relationship between learning the separate acts and mastering the skill as a whole? * Learning to ski (and read) is difficult because the instructor is telling you all sorts of separate acts. To be able to ski well, you must learn to forget the separate acts in order to perform all of them, and indeed any of them, well. * But in order to forget them as separate acts, you have to learn them first as separate acts. Only then can you begin to put them together and become better.

12. And finally: What if Prof. Adler is right, when he says on p. 55, that: “learning to read is at least as complex as learning to ski or to typewrite or to play tennis”? Have you ever considered the possibility that reading is a skill that must be developed? Have you, for example, ever had the experience of learning the basics of a skill and then thinking to yourself, “Well, I guess I know how to ski now,” only to find yourself skiing next to (or playing chess with) someone who can really perform that skill, after which you say to yourself: “I guess I really don’t know how to ski (or play chess) at all?” Then what happened? Did you give up? Or decide to get better? Did you “get better” by forgetting all the rules? Or by practice, practice, practice, until all of those weird, bizarre little things your coach used to go on and on about all of sudden one day started to make sense? Would you think about your education differently if you thought of reading as a skill – like golf – and then thought of your professor as like the “Tiger Wood” of reading Dante or Homer or Aristotle? file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:27:50 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

I don’t say that to impress you with your faculty members, but only to point out that, if you had Tiger Wood tutoring you on your golf swing, would you stand there and whine about how hard it is (especially with the guy who won the U.S. Open with a torn knee ligament and a broken leg), or would you concentrate harder and practice more – not necessarily because you thought you could “become” Tiger Wood, but because, heck, it’s Tiger Wood, and how much better could you be if you listened to Tiger Wood? And let’s be serious, if you spent $18,000 to have Tiger Wood as a teacher for a day, and you spent the whole time whining and refusing to pick up the club, what kind of loser would you be? I mean, it’s not only the money you would have wasted, but the unbelievable opportunity. (And I don’t even like golf.) Now think: Would it really be so much different if you paid someone $18,000 to teach you to read, and then spent the whole time whining and refusing to pick up a book?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:27:50 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 6

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book Part Two: The Third Level of Reading: Analytical Reading

Chapter 6: Pigeonholing a Book NB: Those of you who have been following Prof. Adler’s advice in the section on “inspectional reading” may have taken a look at the Table of Contents of this book. If you had, you would have discovered that the author had divided the book into four parts. Now your first instinct upon hearing that the book is divided into four parts might be to say: “Oh, yes, I get it: the four parts of the book correspond to the four levels of reading: Elementary, Inspectional, Analytic, and Syntopical.” Sorry, but no. In actual fact, the four parts are divided as follows: Part One deals with “The Dimensions of Reading.” Part Two deals with the “The Third level of Reading: Analytical Reading.” (It should be obvious by this point that Adler dealt with the first two levels of reading in Part One.) Part Three, then, deals with “Approaches to Different Kinds of Reading Matter”; that would include the differences between reading stories, plays, and tragedies versus reading history, science and mathematics, and philosophy. And finally, Part Four (which we will not have a chance to read and discuss as a group this semester) is entitled “The Ultimate Goals of Reading” and deals mostly with the fourth level of reading, what Adler calls “Syntopical Reading.” So, now that we are beginning chapter 6, we are also beginning Part Two: the part that deals with Analytical Reading. In fact, this whole section, consisting of chapters 6 through 12, will deal with ways to read “analytically.” Clearly, then, the author considers this third level of reading to be very important. Be that as it may, what I would like you to do with chapter 6 is to “systematically skim” it, just as Prof. Adler instructed you to do in chapter 4. (There is no better time to start using the skills you are being taught than right now.) That is to say, take note of the point the writer is making, while not spending too much time focusing a lot of attention on the various examples he gives.

In section two, for example (“The Importance of Classifying Books”), you will find Adler’s “first rule of analytical reading.” You should have detected it even while quickly skimming the chapter because the author has placed it ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS. When the author does that, it is a signal to the reader to PAY ATTENTION. Get it? So, start by looking at the section heading, “The Importance of Classifying Books,” and try to get the idea of the section (Why is classifying books important?) without worrying about memorizing all the examples (Main Street, Grapes of Wrath, Middletown, The Andromeda Strain, etc.). Then go on to the section entitled “What You Can Learn from the Title of a Book”), find out what you can about “learning from the title of a book,” and move on. In a similar way, find out the basic difference between “Practical vs. Theoretical Books” without worrying too much about who Immanuel Kant is, or John Locke, or Karl Marx. The section isn’t really about Kant or Locke or Marx; they are merely examples. If you don’t know who they are, try to get to the main point and move on. Finally, find out why it is important to identify the “Kinds of Theoretical Books.” Here’s a hint: Look on p. 73 at the paragraph that begins with the words: “It is important to know this because ....” Look for such phrases. The author is on your side. Skimming this chapter should take you no longer than five minutes. Seriously. Get the basic idea and get out. There’s no need to remember all the details about Pornoy’s Complaint. But you should be able to give a decent one- or-two-sentence description of the difference between theoretical and practical books. Then move on to chapter 7, which we will read more slowly.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%206.html[8/20/2008 3:27:47 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 6

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%206.html[8/20/2008 3:27:47 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 7

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book Chapter 7: X-Raying a Book

1. According to Prof. Adler, every book has something hidden between its covers. What is it? What is your job as an analytical reader? What, in other words, is “an essential part of your appreciation of any book”? * Every book has a skeleton hidden between its covers. * Your job as an analytical reader is to find it. * An essential part of your appreciation of any books is to grasp its structure.

2. What are Adler’s “second and third rules for reading any book”? (What, by the way, was the “first rule” for reading any book? Did you write it down in the front end-papers of the book, as Adler suggested? Why not? Will you write Rules 2 and 3 down in the front pages of the book now for easy reference? What, you don’t think that when we get to Rules 4 and 5, I’m not going to ask you about Rules 1, 2, and 3? “O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see; who have ears but do not hear!” as the prophet Jeremiah would say.) * Rule 2: State the unity of the whole book in a single sentence, or at most a few sentences (a short paragraph). * Rule 3: Set forth the major parts of the book, and show how these are organized into a whole, by being ordered to one another and to the unity of the whole.

3. Prof. Adler makes the follow interesting comment on p. 77: “You have not grasped a complex unity if all you know about it is how it is one. You must also know how it is many, not a many that consists of a lot of separate things, but an organized many. If the parts were not organically related, the whole that they composed would not be one. Strictly speaking, there would be no whole at all but merely a collection.” The same thing could be said, in fact, about a liberal arts education. A liberal arts education, as Pope John Paul II suggests in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, involves a search for the truth, and the Truth, ultimately (Catholics, among others, believe), is one. But there are many different disciplines and thus many different ways of coming at the truth. In this course, we have tried to reveal something of the essence of a liberal arts education. We have taken a look at various short “statements” of what a liberal arts education is (or at least, what it is supposed to be). This abiding question about the meaning and purpose of a liberal arts education is one that we hope you will carry with you throughout your years at the university and beyond, into the education that must continue throughout your life. What we have not yet discussed sufficiently, however, are the various parts of a liberal arts education and the relationship between them. This too is a question that you must carry with you into your future education. There is no way in such a brief course that we can do justice to each of the various disciplines at the university. Four years will hardly be enough. Our way of introducing you to the differences between the various disciplines in this class will be to discuss the differences between reading a historical text vs. reading a philosophical text vs. reading a scientific text vs. reading a novel, poem, or a play. In all of these classes, you will be reading. But the kind of reading you will be doing, and the way in which you approach the task of reading, will not be the same in all cases. All classes require reading; all classes require taking notes. And yet, the way in which you exercise those skills in the different disciplines will differ to some degree or another. There are other important differences between the disciplines, of course, but this much will have to do for now. One of your tasks as you move through your four years of college education will be to try to resolve the problem of the “fragmentation of knowledge” that Pope John Paul II and Alasdair MacIntyre addressed. But this does not mean that you are supposed to gloss over the important differences between the disciplines. As Pope John Paul II repeated time and again in Ex Corde, each discipline has its own proper autonomy and methodology. A Catholic liberal arts education is not about replacing the proper methodology of biology or chemistry or psychology with theology. Nor, however, does it allow biology or chemistry or psychology to efface the essential insights of both file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%207.html[8/20/2008 3:27:46 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 7

philosophy and theology – especially those with regard to the nature and dignity of the human person. Our goal is to see the unity that unites the diverse elements, as well as how the diverse elements play their proper part within the unity. Your education is meant to be a whole made up of its proper parts, where the proper parts direct our eyes to a vision of the whole. Only then, when we have seen how the parts fit together into a coherent and integrated whole will we have truly and authentically nourished that human capacity Josef Pieper talked about in Leisure, the Basis of Culture to be capax universi: “capable of grasping the whole.” Now, a question: On p. 77, Prof. Adler compares a book to a house. Explain the analogy. * The many parts have their own integrity, but they also fit together into a coherent whole.

Of Plots and Plans: Stating the Unity of a Book 4. Adler points out that a good place to look for an author’s summary of his whole book is in the preface or on the first few pages of the book. Does Adler believe that you can rely completely on what an author says in the preface? (NB: It might be worthwhile to read at least some of the summaries of the works he gives in this section of the chapter if for no other reason than that I will be asking you in a future assignment to make a similar summary of a book. That is to say, I will be asking you to put into practice Rules 1, 2, and 3 by writing a statement of the unity and the different parts of a book to be announced when you get to that point. Well, okay, it’s Josef Pieper’s Leisure, the Basis of Culture.) * No. The best-laid plans of authors often go awry. Be guided by what the author says, but always remember that the obligation of finding the unity belongs finally to the reader.

Mastering Multiplicity: The Art of Outlining a Book 5. According to Adler, is it necessary to follow the apparent structure of a book as indicated by its chapter divisions when outlining a book? * Not necessarily. That structure may be better than your outline; it may be worse. The point is to develop your own outline.

The Reciprocal Arts of Reading and Writing 6. On p. 90, Prof. Adler says: “In general, the two rules of reading that we have been discussing [Rule 2 on stating the unity of the book and Rule 3 on how the parts are ordered to the whole] look as if they were rules of writing also. Of course they are.” And later on p. 91, he adds: “We can summarize all of this by recalling the old-fashioned maxim that a piece of writing should have unity, clarity, and coherence.” Yes, it should. Now my question to you is this: If you should be able to state the unity and make a coherent outline of a good book, shouldn’t you also be able to state the unity and make a coherent outline of the papers you write for us? (Oops. Now that might be a problem!) Please understand: I’m not giving you that old grammar-school teacher’s advice that you should write from an outline. Not everyone writes that way. In fact, very few people are able to write that way. Most of us need a first draft to “brain-storm” before we know what we want to say. Writing is a way of thinking; it is a way of thinking through a problem. And so, when you first sit down to write, it may well be that you have no idea what you want to say. Don’t let yourself get stuck. There is an old writer’s trick that goes something like this: When you find yourself with what is sometimes called “writer’s block,” instead of writing your actual text, write down what you would like to write about. So, for example, if you have to do a paper on the character of Achilles in Homer’s Iliad, and you don’t know what to say, write about what you want to write about: “I want to write a paper about Achilles, and in this paper I would like to argue that Achilles is a spoiled brat. He is totally self-involved, and he doesn’t seem to care about anyone else more than his own glory....” Before the end of the first page, you’ll find yourself actually writing the paper, instead of merely writing about the paper you would like to write. You need to get the ideas flowing. Once they are flowing, let them come. But please don’t misunderstand me: Rarely, if ever, will this practice produce a good paper – on the first draft. But it will give you a host of ideas to work with. Take those ideas, rearrange them, organize them, and on your second or third draft, you may have an acceptable paper. So, even if you don’t start with an outline, by the time you are finished, you should be able to state the unity (Rule 2) and make an outline (Rule 3) of your own paper, just as you would for any book. If someone else in the dorm or in your class can’t state the unity correctly and make any sort of sensible outline of your paper, you need to re-write it. Period. Exclamation point. No exceptions. If you come to me with one of your papers, and I ask you to state the basic idea or thesis of your paper, and then lay out how you organized the paper to support that thesis, if you can’t do file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%207.html[8/20/2008 3:27:46 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 7

it, trust me, I’ll be sending you back to do another draft and come back to me when you’ve actually written something worth reading. Bottom line: Unity, clarity, coherence: you’re looking for those characteristics in books you read; we’re looking for those characteristics in the papers you write. Why? Because having the skill to produce unity, clarity, and coherence is precisely what distinguishes good writers from bad. So help us help you: Read and outline your own papers after you’ve written them, so that you know whether or not you’ve produced unity, clarity, and coherence.

Discovering the Author’s Intentions 7. What is Adler’s fourth rule of analytical reading? * Rule 4: Find out what the author’s problems were. The author of the book starts with a question or set of questions. The book ostensibly contains the answer or answers.

8. What is the fallacy that is called by some literary critics the “intentional fallacy”? * The “intentional fallacy”: the fallacy of thinking you can discover what was in an author’s mind from the book he has written.

9. At first glance, the “intentional fallacy” – the fallacy of thinking you can discover what was in an author’s mind from the book he has written – might not seem like a fallacy at all. I mean, don’t you discover what the author is thinking from reading his book? Well, in a sense yes, and in a sense no. You can certainly understand what the author was trying to say by means of the story, the poem, or the play. But you should never simply assume that what the author is communicating by means of the story, the poem, or the play is necessarily the author’s own position on an issue. Some authors are trying to express the complexities in a number of different positions by means of the various characters they create or the various approaches they adopt. It is one thing to say, “Here is what Shakespeare was attempting to communicate by means of his play The Taming of the Shrew.” It is quite another to try to “get behind” the text to peer into the mind or intentions of the author; to say, for example, that Shakespeare wrote The Taming of the Shrew in order to show that women should be submissive to men. (Is it possible, on the contrary, that Shakespeare was making fun of that sort of sexism by means of the play? And who is really the shrew in the play? The woman Kate? Or the man Petruchio? Both are pretty shrewish. And both seem to tame each other within the bonds of marriage.) Similarly, it is one thing to say, “The Roman poet Virgil was exploring the value and limitations of the ancient Greek ideal of the hero in the context of Roman culture and society in his epic poem the Aeneid.” It would be quite another to claim “Virgil wrote The Aeneid in order to suck up to Caesar Augustus.” (If you want to defend that thesis about Virgil, you’d better have some really good historical evidence.) Students who have spent too much time listening to the kind of pseudo-psychology one finds on Oprah or other television or radio shows will sometimes suggest elaborate psychological theories about authors about whom they know next to nothing: “Shakespeare clearly hated his mother;” “I think Aristotle was obviously a mean man;” “Emily Dickinson was just repressed.” In all of these cases, you would just be guessing. Don’t. The goal here is to grasp the idea expressed by the writer by means of the book, not to try to read the writer’s mind or grasp his or her ultimate intentions.

What Adler is talking about in Rule 4 is something much simpler and more straightforward. In following this rule, you should extend to other authors the same courtesy you would wish extended to you. If you were writing a paper on “Supply Side Economics,” one of your classmates might accuse you of trying to suck up to your conservative economics professor, just as if you were writing a paper on “Third World Poverty,” someone else might accuse you of trying to suck up to your liberal politics professor. Now in both cases, they might be right, but it seems unfair to conclude that your intentions are impure simply because of the topic of your paper. Wouldn’t you prefer it if readers simply took your paper and its arguments at face value? You want them to judge the quality of your work, not to start guessing at the purity or impurity of your motives, don’t you? Well that’s the courtesy you should extend to the authors you read. You should be asking not, “What is the author’s soul like?” but rather: “What is the question the author is trying to answer, and what is the significance of posing the question in this way?” If Plato, or Aristotle, or Thomas Aquinas thinks a certain question is important, the response of a good reader is not, “Why do they think such a silly thing is important?” or “My, my, what silly people these dead, white guys must have been!” but rather: “Why would these intelligent gentlemen have thought this issue was important? What are they seeing that perhaps I am not? What significance is there for these authors in asking this question in this way?” Most people don’t write books because they have nothing else better to do. Writing generally requires too much effort for that. Most people write books file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%207.html[8/20/2008 3:27:46 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 7

because they think they have something important to say. They may be wrong about whether they have something important to say, but our job as readers is to try to discover what important thing they were trying (even if somewhat unsuccessfully) to say. Most of my students expect me to read their papers in just this way. Fair enough. Now it’s time for you to read the things you read in just this way. A question: When Prof. Adler tells you to “find out what the author’s problems were,” is he talking about the author’s psychological or physical or emotional problems? Or is he talking about something else? * No, the “author’s problems” are not his or her psychological, physical, or emotional problems. He is talking about the questions the author is exploring or trying to answer by means of the book.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%207.html[8/20/2008 3:27:46 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 8

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book Chapter 8: Coming to Terms with an Author

1. At the beginning of this chapter, Prof. Adler summarizes the previous chapter by saying: “The first stage of analytical reading has been accomplished when you have applied the four rules listed at the end of the last chapter, which together allow you to tell what a book is about and to outline its structure. Now you are ready to go on to the next stage ....” Before we go on to the next stage, let’s review. What are the first four rules of analytical reading? (Have you written them in the front end-papers of your book yet? I told you I was going to ask.) * Rule 1: Classify the book according to kind and subject matter. * Rule 2: State the unity of the whole book in a single sentence, or at most a few sentences (a short paragraph). * Rule 3: Set forth the major parts of the book, and show how these are organized into a whole, by being ordered to one another and to the unity of the whole. * Rule 4: Find out what the author’s problems were. The author of the book starts with a question or set of questions. The book ostensibly contains the answer or answers.

2. “Now,” says Adler, we are “ready to go on to the next stage.” Hooray. How many rules of reading can we expect to get in this section? * There are 4 rules in this, the second stage of analytical reading.

Words vs. Terms 3. What is Adler’s Rule 5 of analytical reading? Please explain the two parts of the rule. * Rule 5: Find the important worlds and through them come to terms with the author. * First part: locate the important words: the words that make a difference. * Second part: determine the meaning of these words, as used, with precision.

4. How does Adler distinguish “words” from “terms”? For “communication to be successfully completed,” says Adler, what is necessary? * Terms are a skilled use of words for the sake of communicating knowledge. * One “word” can be the vehicle for many “terms,” and one “term” can be expressed by many “words.” * For communication to be successful, it is necessary for the two parties to use the same words with the same meanings – in short, to come to terms.

5. Another way of getting at what Adler means by his distinction between “words” and “terms” is simply to ask yourself, “What does the author mean when he is using this word? Does he or she mean the same thing I mean when I use that word, or something different?” On, p. 100, Adler illustrates what he means by reference to his own book. He observes that: “The word reading has been used in many senses in the course of our discussion.” He then distinguishes three of these senses: “By the word “reading” we may mean (1) reading to be entertained, (2) reading to get information, and (3) reading to achieve understanding.” Now consider the following three fairly-common sentences: (a) Reading is fun. (b) Reading takes time. (c) Reading can change your life. Which senses of the word “reading” are implied in each of these three sentences? Each sentence uses the same word: “reading.” But it should be pretty clear that the word “reading” is not necessarily being used in the same sense in all three sentences. “Reading can change your life” is a true statement, but not necessarily about reading that is done for entertainment. Similarly, “Reading is fun” is also a true statement, but not necessarily about reading that is done to get information. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%208.html[8/20/2008 3:27:49 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 8

How about this commonly-used word: “love”? What are the different meanings of the word “love” in the following sentences: (a) I love my car. (b) I love my wife. (c) I love these old shoes. (d) I love this city. All four sentences use the same word, “love,” but one can scarcely imagine that one means exactly the same thing by that word in all four sentences. (Do you really love your wife in the same sense that you love your car?) Or how about the word “good”? As in: (a) This chocolate cake is really good. (b) This book is really good. (c) What you did for your brother was really good. (d) Saint Vincent de Paul was really good. (e) Do you think this mayonnaise is any good? (f) This interest rate is really good? Do you suppose it would be important when you are reading (or listening) to be clear about what sense of “good” the person has in mind. I will often ask students when they say something is good: “Do you mean “good” aesthetically, “good” morally, or “good” in the sense of “beneficial for me”?

Finding the Key Words Technical Words and Special Vocabularies 6. How do you, as a reader, spot the key words in a text? * Not all the words an author uses are “key” words. Only those words that he uses in a special way are important for him, or for us as readers. Thus look for the words that are not being used in a common, ordinary way. * Other signs of special words:

(i) explicit stress an author places upon certain words (quotation marks; italics; calling attention to it explicitly in the text; defining it specially for the reader) (ii) special or technical words within a discipline (iii) when an author quarrels with other writers about a word (iv) Basic rule: If the word is important for the author, it should be important for you, the reader.

Finding the Meanings 7. On p. 106, Adler says: “Spotting the important words is only the beginning of the task. It merely locates the places in the text where you have to go to work. There is another part of this fifth rule of reading. Let us turn to that now. Let us suppose you have marked the words that trouble you. What next?” Good question. What next? * Determine whether the author is using the key word in a single sense or in two or more senses.

8. How does one find out what meanings the various key words have? * The answer is that you have to discover the meaning of a word you do not understand by using the meanings of all the other words in the context that you do understand.

9. On p. 110, Adler suggests that you distinguish between an author’s vocabulary and his terminology. How does Alder describe the difference? Which of these two – vocabulary and terminology – can be found in a dictionary? And which can be found only by reading the word in the context as the author uses it? [This distinction reveals, by the way, why you can rarely use a dictionary definition of a key term when writing a paper. So, for example, if you are reading Cicero’s essay “On Duty,” please don’t simply go to the dictionary and look up the word “duty,” and then write: “Duty, according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, means ....” To understand what Cicero mean by “duty,” you have to read his essay!] * If you make a list in one column of the important words (vocabules), and in another of their important meanings (their use as “terms”), you will see the relation between the vocabulary and the terminology. * The definitions of words can be found in a dictionary. But the meaning of the word as the author is using it – something which is not totally unrelated to the dictionary definition, but not entirely the same either – can only be uncovered by reading the book itself. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%208.html[8/20/2008 3:27:49 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 9

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book Chapter 9: Determining an Author’s Message

1. What are Adler’s sixth and seventh rules of analytical reading? [Hint: If you can’t find them right away, think: Where are the best places to find summaries of the contents of a chapter?] * Rule 6: Grasp the author’s leading propositions by dealing with his most important sentences. * Rule 7: Know the author’s arguments, by finding them in, or constructing them out of, sequences of sentences. * Answer to hint: Students should have looked in (a) the Table of Contents, (b) the beginning of the chapter, (c) the end of the chapter, or (d) the beginning of the next chapter. In this case, the end of the chapter would have worked.

2. What is it important that we know not only the author’s propositions (Rule 6), but also his or her arguments (Rule 7)? * Propositions are nothing but expressions of personal opinion unless they are supported by reasons (and arguments). * If it is the book and the subject with which it deals that we are interested in, and not just the author, we want to know not merely what his propositions are, but also why he thinks we should be persuaded to accept them.

3. Let’s think about that last rule again: namely, that we should seek to know not only a person’s propositions, but also his or her arguments on behalf of those propositions. Many of us seek to know the first and forget about the second. That is, we will often ask our friends and fellow interlocutors something like this: “What is your position on higher taxes?” The only reply we often seem to have any patience for is something that can be summed up in a proposition: “I am for (or against) higher taxes.” “Ah,” we say to our interlocutor, “clearly you must be some kind of dirty Republican (or Democrat). Hmm, I thought as much.” And off we go, smug in our supposed knowledge of what the person thinks. But is that fair? Do you like it when people think they have you “figured out” by listening to your one-word or one- sentence answer to a question? Most of us imagine (sometimes wrongly) that we have fairly sophisticated and well- thought-out ideas about things. What if we actually had the patience to give our interlocutors the respect they deserve by listening not only to their position, but also to the reasons why they hold that position? Isn’t that what really listening to a person means: listening not only to what they say, but listening for the reasons why they say it? The same effort should be involved whether we agree or disagree with a person. It is no better to agree with a person not understanding why you agree, than it is to disagree, not understanding why you disagree. So the next time someone says to you, “Well, Michael Jordan thinks that the NBA is paying its players too much money,” you should reply: “Why does Michael Jordan think that?” and not: “Well, if Michael Jordan says it, it must be true.” And if someone says: “You don’t want to disagree with Michael Jordan, do you?” you should reply: “It depends on why Michael Jordan says what he says. I don’t want to disagree with him if he has good arguments. But I don’t want to agree with him if he has stupid arguments, whether it’s Michael Jordan or not. So let’s get to the arguments.”

Sentences vs. Propositions 4. On p. 117, Adler says: “Sentences are grammatical units. They are units of language. Propositions and arguments are logical units, or units of thought and knowledge.” Explain the difference.

5. On p. 118, Adler has copied out for you the following sentence from The Prince, a book by Renaissance thinker Niccolo Machiavelli: “A prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he [at least] avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared [as long as] he is not hated, which will always be [the case] as long as he abstains from [taking] the property of his citizens and from [taking] their women.” This is one sentence. Does this one sentence contain just one proposition, or does it contain more than one? Can you, for example, disagree with part of the sentence and agree with another part? file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%209.html[8/20/2008 3:27:52 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 9

* more than one proposition * Yes, you may think Machiavelli is wrong in recommending fear to a prince; but you might also acknowledge his shrewdness in suggesting that the prince had better not arouse hatred along with the fear, and you might also agree that keeping his hands off his subjects’ property and women is an indispensable condition of not being hated.

Finding the Key Sentences 6. How does one locate the most important sentences in a book? (And why is identifying the key sentences crucial in terms of your reading speed and comprehension?) How, then, does one interpret these sentences to discover the one or more propositions they contain? * From the author’s point of view, the important sentences are the ones that express the judgments on which his whole argument rests. * The heart of his communication lies in the major affirmations and denials he is making, the reasons he gives for doing so. You have to see the main sentences as if they were raised from the page in high relief. * Some authors help you do this: by underlining, italics, or set forth in special sections or sentences. * Look for the key words. The key words often lead you to key sentences and key propositions. The propositions will lead you to the argument of the book.

Finding the Propositions 7. On p. 124, Prof. Adler says: “Let us suppose that you have located the leading sentences. Another step is required by Rule 6 [which, as you will recall, is “Grasp the author’s leading propositions by dealing with his most important sentences”]. You must discover the proposition or propositions that each of these sentences contains.” How is this done? * This is just another way of saying that you must know what the sentence means. You discover terms [that is, the meaning of a word] by discovering what a word means in a given usage. [That is, you must understand what the word means in context, as it is being used by the author.] You discover propositions similarly by interpreting all the words that make up the sentence, and especially its principal words.

8. Once you have found the key sentences in a book, you need to understand what they mean. What two things should you be able to do, according to Prof. Adler, to show that you have actually understood the propositions in a book, and are not merely repeating by rote memorization – without understanding – the words of a sentence? * State it in your own words. * Can you point to some experience you have had that the proposition describes or to which the proposition is in any way relevant? Can you exemplify the general truth that has been enunciated by referring to a particular instance of it?

9. On p. 128, Prof. Adler defines his use of the term “the vice of verbalism.” [Please note: The words “the vice of verbalism” might mean a number of things in a number of different contexts for a number of different authors. Prof. Adler is using the words “the vice of verbalism” with a specific meaning to refer to a specific problem. Thus, it has become one of his “terms.” That is why I have asked you: How does he define the term “the vice of verbalism”?] * The vice of “verbalism” can be defined as the bad habit of using words without regard for the thoughts they should convey and without awareness of the experiences to which they should refer. * It is repeating the words in a empty way, without truly understanding what they mean.

10. Do you understand what Prof. Adler is referring to when, on p. 128, he refers to the “slavery to words rather than mastery over them”? (If you don’t understand what he means, then what position to you suppose you’re in: slavery or mastery?)

Finding the Arguments 11. Up to this point in the chapter, Adler has been developing ideas related to Rule 6: “Grasp the author’s leading propositions by dealing with his most important sentences.” With this section, he turns to Rule 7: “Know the author’s arguments, by finding them in, or constructing them out of, sequences of sentences.” At the beginning of this section, he points out that one cannot always find the argument of a book by following the order of the paragraphs; and this for two reasons. First, there is not general agreement among writers about when or how often paragraph breaks should be used. And second, there are many paragraphs in a book that are not directly related to the central argument. That is why Adler suggests another formulation of Rule 7. What is it? file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%209.html[8/20/2008 3:27:52 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 9

* Find if you can the paragraphs in a book that state its important arguments; but if the arguments are not expressed in this way, your task is to construct the arguments, by taking a sentence from this paragraph, and one from another, until you have gathered together the sequence of sentences that state the propositions that compose the argument. * The key here is to find the key sentences and key propositions, and then tie them together into a coherent argument.

12. Does Prof. Adler believe that readers must understand arguments the way a logician does in order to understand books? (By the same token, would having a better understanding of arguments help you to read and understand books better?) * No, to the first, and Yes, to the parenthetical question.

13. On pp. 132 and 133, Adler lays out a few guidelines to help you when dealing with arguments. (There are three of them, to be more precise.) What are they? (These are very rudimentary, and it would be good for you to learn more about arguments, but these will have to do for now.) * (i) Every argument must involve a number of statements, stating both conclusion and reasons for the conclusion. If you find the conclusion first, then look for the reasons. If you find the reasons first, see where they lead. * (ii) Discriminate between two different kinds of argument: those that use one or more particular facts as evidence for a more general conclusion (inductive) [the kind of reasoning used when offering experimental evidence] vs. those that offer a series of general statements to prove some further generalization (deductive) [later described as “reasoning from other general truths”]. * (iii) Observe what things the author says he must assume, what he says can be proved or otherwise evidenced, and what things need not be proved because they are self-evident. The author may reveal his presuppositions, but then again, he may not. (He may not even be aware of them.) Either way, you are responsible for finding them.

Finding the Solutions 14. What is Adler’s eighth rule for analytical reading? * Rule 8: Find out what the author’s solutions are. Or as stated in the conclusion to this chapter: “Determine which of his problems the author has solved, and which he has not; and as to the latter, decide which the author knew he had failed to solve.

15. You’ve now covered the first two stages of analytical reading, and the first eight rules. Remember, however, you won’t necessarily read every book with same degree of precision. Some you will read quickly – merely skimming – others more slowly. Even for those you merely skim, the following rules will be helpful to a greater or lesser extent. But for those things you read that are worthy of more attention and analysis, the following rules will definitely be worth remembering:

I. The First Stage of Analytical Reading: Rules for Finding What a Book Is About 1. Classify the book according to kind and subject matter. 2. State what the whole book is about with the utmost brevity. 3. Enumerate its major parts in their order and relation, and outline these parts as you have outlined the whole. 4. Define the problem or problems the author has tried to solve.

II. The Second Stage of Analytical Reading: Rules for Interpreting a Book’s Contents 5. “Come to terms” with the author by interpreting his key words. 6. Grasp the author’s leading propositions by dealing with his most important sentences. 7. Know the author’s arguments, by finding them in, or constructing them out of, sequences of sentences. * NB: Important corollary to Rule 7: Try to be aware of the author’s assumptions and pre-suppositions. 8. Determine which of his problems the author has solved, and which he has not; and of the latter, decide which the author knew he had failed to solve.

Now let’s consider further. You too are a writer. You too will be producing expository prose over the next four years, and for most of you, for the rest of your life. Ask yourself this: When you are finished writing something, would your readers be able to approach what you have written using these same rules of analytical reading? Would your readers file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%209.html[8/20/2008 3:27:52 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 9

be able, for example, to “enumerate the parts in their order and relation”? Would they be able to identify “key terms” and understand their meaning? Would they be able to diagram your argument? Do you even have an argument? Or just a series of disconnected assertions? Have you given sufficient evidence to support your conclusions? Are you aware of your own pre-suppositions? Or is your writing an example of prejudice building on prejudice? Do you know what problem you are setting out to solve, and how you have solved it (or not)? In short, do you understand that the rules we are discussing with regards to analytical reading are the standards you should be applying to your own analytical writing? And finally, if your professor asks you concerning one of your papers: “Where’s the argument and the evidence?”, will you reply: “Huh? Papers are supposed to have arguments? Whuh?” Or will you be able to show him or her the outline of the argument?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%209.html[8/20/2008 3:27:52 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 10

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book Chapter 10: Criticizing a Book Fairly

1. The first step in reading or in conversation is revealed in the old saying that goes: “Seek ye first to understand, and then to be understood.” The wisdom of this old saying is embodied in Adler’s Rule 9 of analytical reading: “Do not begin criticism until you have completed your outline and interpretation of the book.” That is to say, do not deign to say you agree or disagree until you can honestly say, “I understand.” But by the same token, it is just as important if you are to become a good reader to move on to the next stage of analytical reading: that is, entering into a kind of conversation with the author. In a sense, of course, that conversation should be going on all the while you are reading. That is what active reading is all about: underlining, making notes in the margin, and all the rest are ways of entering into a conversation with the book you are reading. All along as you read, you should be asking: What is the author saying? What is the argument he or she is making? Does that argument make sense? That is the greatest honor you can do to any writer: to take him or her seriously by taking his or her arguments seriously – seriously enough to listen attentively and then make up your own mind. Most writers hate fawning admirers: people who “love” the author’s propositions or conclusions – these are usually people who love to have their own prejudices reinforced – without appreciating or understanding the arguments. Great authors will often maintain: “You cannot understand what I am saying, unless you understand why I am saying it.” Great authors will usually prefer an intelligent disagreement over fawning agreement every time. But for good conversations to arise, there must be intelligent disagreement. Being contrary or disagreeable is not the same as intelligently disagreeing. This is a difficult distinction for many people to understand. In our society, we tend to have two distinct modes of responding to an argument, and we find both in college classrooms. Either students will say: “Well, everyone should be allowed his or her own opinion, so I’ll say nothing.” Or there will be a loud shouting match. Both of these responses will often be found coming from the same person. Is there something in between the commandment “Never disagree with anyone no matter what he or she says” and the tendency to bite people’s heads off who disagree with us? Is it possible, for example, to enter into a dialogue? To enter into a process of questioning with and thinking through issues with someone else? A process in which you will not become either a silent bystander nor a belligerent opponent, but a partner in the search for the truth? A process in which you will be analyzing arguments and evidence, not attacking a person? These are the challenges of a liberal arts education. Neither will you want to sit idly by while your teachers and the books they assign take control of your mind, nor will you want to shout down every opinion proposed to you before your interlocutor has had a chance to get it out of his or her mouth. Your goal should be to learn what you can from others. And for that to happen, you need to be “teachable.” “Teachable” does not mean merely “compliant.” Far from it. No teacher wants fawning agreement any more than good authors want fawning fans. Good teachers prefer intelligent disagreement to unintelligent agreement. You learn from others by not only listening to what they say, but by trying to understand why they are saying it. Then you test your own ideas against theirs in a common search for the truth. So here’s a question: Are you teachable? If someone disagrees with you, do you take it as a personal offense? Do you just clam up? Do you get angry and annoyed? Or do you take disagreement as an occasion for learning something? Here’s another way of putting the same question: If you were wrong about something, would you want someone else to tell you? Would you want someone else to show you how and why you’re wrong? Or would you prefer to remain in ignorance and not submit yourself to that threat to your ego? Be honest. Are you teachable? If not, how do you expect us to teach you? Is there something required on your part if any real learning is to take place over the next four years? If so, what? (And I’m not just talking about things like “studying” and “doing your homework,” but what we might call an even deeper “openness to reality,” to use a term from Pieper’s Leisure, the Basis of Culture.)

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%2010.html[8/20/2008 3:27:43 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 10

Teachability as a Virtue 2. According to Prof. Adler, “No one is really teachable” who does not do what? (Does his assertion about “teachability” surprise you?) Who, then, is “the most teachable” sort of person? * No one is really teachable who does not freely exercise his power of independent judgment. He can be trained, perhaps, but not taught. * The most teachable reader is, therefore, the most critical. He is the reader who finally responds to a book by the greatest effort to make up his own mind on the matters under discussion. * But, by the same token, teachability requires that a teacher (or any other fellow interlocutor, such as fellow students) be fully heard, and more than that, understood before he or she is judged {either positively or negatively).

The Role of Rhetoric 3. According to Prof. Adler, “rhetoric is involved in every situation in which communication takes place.” Please explain what he means. * If we are talkers, we wish not only to be understood but also to be agreed with in some sense. If our purpose in trying to communicate is serious [and in much comedy as well], we wish to convince or persuade.

4. What does Adler mean when says “one must be not only a responsive but also a responsible listener”? * You are responsive to the extent that you follow what has been said and note the intention that prompts it. But you also have a responsibility of taking a position. When you take it, it is yours, not the author’s. To regard anyone except yourself as responsible for your judgment is to be a slave, not a free man. It is from this fact that the liberal arts acquire their name.

5. What, according to Prof. Adler, is the role of rhetorical skill on the part of the speaker or writer? What, then, reciprocally, is the role of rhetorical skill on the part of the reader or listener? * On the part of the speaker or writer: rhetorical skill is knowing how to convince or persuade. * On the part of the reader or listener: rhetorical skill is knowing how to react to anyone who tries to convince or persuade us.

6. Consider for a moment: Why would having rhetorical skill as a reader or listener be especially important in this day and age? * Because there are plenty of people trying to convince us of all sorts of things – and they are especially ingenious at knowing how to “push our emotional buttons” and play to our prejudices.

The Importance of Suspending Judgment 7. Why, according to Prof. Adler, is it important to know when to “suspend judgment”? * To agree is just as much an exercise of critical judgment on your part as to disagree. You can be just as wrong in agreeing as in disagreeing. To agree without understanding is inane. To disagree without understanding is imprudent. * Thus, suspending judgment is also an act of criticism. It is taking the position that something has not been shown. You are saying that you are not convinced or persuaded one way or the other. * It is important because it helps to keep you from agreeing or disagreeing when you don’t have good reasons to do one or the other.

8. Have you ever had the experience that Prof. Adler describes on p. 143 in which someone says to you, in effect: “I don’t know what you mean, but I still think you’re wrong”? How did it make you feel? Do you think you have ever been guilty of disagreeing with someone else, without really understanding what he or she meant? How do you suppose that person felt? What is Prof. Adler’s advice when someone says to you, in effect: “I don’t know what you mean, but I still think you’re wrong”? * Ask them to re-state what you have said in their own words.

9. Now turn the advice around. If you were in a disagreement with someone, and she asked you to re-state her position in your own words, would you be willing (and able) to do it? If you can’t re-state the position in your own words, would you consider your interlocutor “entirely justified in ignoring” your criticisms? Or would you insist that, even though you’re clearly not listening or paying attention to them, they should obviously be listening and paying attention to you? Indeed, do you refuse to listen or pay attention to anybody? (And please don’t try to tell me that you file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%2010.html[8/20/2008 3:27:43 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 10

never ask anyone to listen or pay attention to you. I spend hours reading and writing in a coffee shop. I know what happens when people don’t think they’ve been listened or paid attention to. It’s not pretty.) And finally: If you were to disagree with an author in class, and the professor asked you “Why do you disagree? Give me some reasons?”, would you be surprised or offended? Do you assume that people should just listen to what you say, accept it, and not ask why?

The Importance of Avoiding Contentiousness 10. What is Adler’s Rule 10? * Rule 10: When you disagree, do so reasonably, and not disputatiously or contentiously.

11. Do you agree with Adler that “there is no point in winning an argument if you know or suspect you are wrong”? Do you agree, moreover, that “Most people [seem to] think that winning the argument is what matters, not learning the truth”? Do you agree, finally, that “It goes without saying that a reader should admit a point when he sees it,” and that even more, “he also should not feel whipped by having to agree with an author” or interlocutor? (One question is, “Do you agree with Adler – intellectually?” Another is: “Do you feel whipped by having to agree with someone else – in reality?” Why do you suppose you do something different in reality from what your mind tells you is the right thing to do?

On the Resolution of Disagreements 12. According to Adler, “disagreement is futile agitation” unless it is undertaken with a certain hope. What is that hope? * With the hope that it may lead to the resolution of an issue. Yes, it is true, not everyone always does agree; but conversations and discussions are built on the hope that reasonable men and women can agree.

13. On p. 148, Adler makes the following touching appeal. He says of a person who finds himself in disagreement with another that: “He should be as much prepared to have his own mind changed as seek to change the mind of another. He should always keep before him the possibility that he misunderstands or that he is ignorant of some point. No one who looks upon disagreement as an occasion for teaching another should forget that it is also an occasion for being taught.” Sounds nice. Is it true of you?

14. At the bottom of p. 148, Adler says the following: “The trouble is that many people regard disagreement as unrelated to either teaching or being taught. They think that everything is just a matter of opinion. I have mine, and you have yours; and our right to our opinions is as inviolable as our right to private property. On such a view, communication cannot be profitable if the profit to be gained is an increase in knowledge. Conversation is hardly better than a ping-pong game of opposed opinions, a game in which no one keeps score, no one wins, and everyone is satisfied because he does not lose – that is, he ends up holding the same opinions he started with.” Would that be your view? If so, what on your view would be the value of discussion? (Please don’t say: “Well, I might learn something, so I listen just in case,” because then you would be agreeing with Adler, and sharing his hope, that conversations can – at least sometimes – lead to agreement and increased understanding. And please also understand that saying, “Well, I just like to hear what other people have to say” is nice, but probably not true. Most people don’t like listening to positions different from their own, nor do they generally have the patience to listen to arguments at all. When we listen to other people, we generally do so for a reason. We either want to learn something new, or we want to make a new friend, or for guys, they often want the woman to think they care about her mind and not just sex. But rarely do people just sit around and listen to other people babble “just because they like to hear what other people have to say.”)

15. Here’s another way of putting the question. If you believe that “our right to our opinions is as inviolable as our right to private property,” then let me ask you this: Is our right to private property an absolute right? Or does the right to private property bring with it certain responsibilities (such as, perhaps, the right to help people in need, especially in times of trouble or natural disaster)? Similarly, you certainly do have a right to your opinion. But does the right to formulate your own opinion on important matters bring with it certain responsibilities? If so, what are those responsibilities?

16. What is Adler’s eleventh rule for analytical reading? file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%2010.html[8/20/2008 3:27:43 PM] Adler Questions to Guide CHAPTER 10

* Rule 11: Respect the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion, by giving reasons for any critical judgment you make.

17. When you disagree with an author or an interlocutor, do you usually feel compelled to give reasons for any critical judgments you make? Or do you feel an expression of your opinion is sufficient? That is, do you usually just say something like: “I disagree,” or “That’s just stupid,” or “How unbelievably idiotic can you be!” or “Anyone who would hold that view doesn’t, like, belong on the planet,” and let it go at that, feeling no need at all to justify your position? If the latter, how do you like it if, having laid out what you consider to be an interesting and important argument about something, your interlocutor replies: “Huh? What kind of stupid crap is that? I don’t even know what you’re talking about. You must be some kind of a hopeless idiot if you think that.” Would that make you angry? Would it be any better if the person had said instead: “Yes, that’s all very interesting, sweety pie, but I just don’t agree”? (Okay, I admit I added the “sweety pie” bit in order to emphasize the patronizing character of the response: The person disagrees but sees no reason to give any reason why? That means he or she is treating you like a child. They are, in effect, patting you on the head and saying: “Yes, that’s nice dear. Now go and play. What you just said has absolutely no relevance to me or to my life.”) All of this brings us to issue of how one should agree or disagree with someone else. And that is the topic of the next chapter.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Adler%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%2010.html[8/20/2008 3:27:43 PM] merchants of cool

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Consider Before and After Viewing the Video "Merchants of Cool"

1. What is it, ultimately, that MTV and other advertizers are selling? [Hint: Take a look at the title of the documentary.]

2. Many (if not most) rock groups (like Limp Bizkit, to name just one mentioned in the documentary) and rock disc jockeys (like Howard Stern) have portrayed themselves as "rebels" who "rage against the establishment" and reject the whole uncool, unfeeling, corrupt, corporate establishment world. Is this an authentic self- portrayal? Or are they as much a part of the corporate world of consumerism as anything else? Explain. If these hip, cool "rebels" are as much a part of the corporate world as, say, the president of Exxon, why do they portray themselves as "outsiders"?

3. Does MTV represent "authentic" youth culture? If not, what does represent "authentic" youth culture? By the way, what is "authentic" youth culture?

4. Why do groups like MTV study the youth of America so carefully? Is it because they want to help solve the problems of today's youth? Is it because they really, really want to "understand" teenagers as unique, individual persons?

5. Does viewing a documentary like this one make you more jaded and disillusioned about American culture? Why? Did you ever really think you could put your faith in rock groups and television? Okay, so if you can't put your faith in rock groups and television, what can you put your faith in? Anything? Anybody? Or is all of life just an empty, meaningless illusion? And if you say "no" to life being an empty, meaningless illusion, then what kinds of things, in your view (and in your experience), are not ultimately empty, meaningless, and illusorsy?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/merchants_of_cool.html[8/20/2008 3:35:24 PM] overspent american questions

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Selections from: Juliet Schor, The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don't Need (New York: Basic Books, 1998).

1. According to Prof. Schor (who cites a best-selling book by author Thomas J. Stanley entitled The Millionaire Next Door), do most millionaires in America (“millionaires” being defined as people who have assets in excess of a million dollars) generally spend a lot of their income on consumer items, or do they generally spend lesser percentages of their income on consumer items than other people?

2. According to Prof. Schor, how are the spending patterns of “most Americans” different from those of most millionaires?

3. What does Prof. Schor mean when she says that, “Advertising and the media have played an important part in stretching out reference groups vertically”?

4. As Prof. Schor points out, “Oddly, it doesn't seem as if we're spending wastefully, or even lavishly. Rather, many of us feel we're just making it, barely able to stay even.” While I’m generally not inclined to have students memorize statistics, there are some numbers here worth pondering. Consider what follows: “But what's remarkable is that this feeling is not restricted to families of limited income. It's a generalized feeling, one that exists at all levels. Twenty-seven percent of all households making more than $100,000 a year say they cannot afford to buy everything they really need. Nearly 20 percent say they ‘spend nearly all their income on the basic necessities of life.’ In the $50,000-100,000 range, 39 per cent and one-third feel this way, respectively. Overall, half the population of the richest country in the world say they cannot afford everything they really need. And it's not just the poorer half.” Okay, so if I ask you, of Americans in the $50,000-100,000 range (the range most of our students aspire to be in sometime within five or so years after graduation), how many people say they cannot afford everything they really need, you should answer ... what? And if I ask you, of Americans in the $50,000-100,000 range, how many people say they spend “nearly all their income on the basic necessities of life,” you should answer ... what?

5. Any thoughts on the statistics given above? What would you say, for example, to a UST alum, seven years after graduation, making, say, $60,000 a year, if he or she said to you: “Damn it, I just can’t afford everything I really need. In fact, I spend all of my money on the basic necessities of life. I just can’t get ahead!” What if that alum were you? What is the likelihood that that alum will be you if national patterns hold true for graduates of UST? (Look around the classroom, count how many students there are, and then figure out how many of you will be, not only “dissatisfied” with your lives, but feeling “on the edge”– “just barely making it”– even if you’re making in excess of $50,000 per year? What would be required to keep you from entering into that 39 percent? More money? Would making more money really keep you from having that “barely making it” feeling? How much more?

Sometimes students will say to me: “But Prof. Smith, I have to make money!” Yes, you do. The question is, “How much?” You want to live in a hard-edged, serious-minded business world, don’t you? Okay, so figure it out: how much money do you need? It doesn’t matter to me whether you say $50,000 per year or $250,000. My proposal is simply this: Figure out how much you need, and then once you’ve reached that goal, stop worrying about making more money. But as we all know, that probably won’t happen. Why not? What happens to most people once they actually reach that $50,000 or $250,000 or $250 million goal? Explain.

6. Many of my students who read these figures laugh contemptuously at these people making $100,000 and above who say they “cannot afford everything they really need.” These people, they think, are so tied to “how they look” and “how other people see them.” One student, covered with tatoos and wearing a studded leather belt, came up to file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/overspent%20american%20questions.html[8/20/2008 3:28:54 PM] overspent american questions

me after class and said, “I hate those people!” He had spent some time living – literally – on the streets. And he was none too happy with the ostentatious wealth he saw swirling around him in Houston. (Now he drives a very expensive Lexus and wears a Rolex watch.) Are these students missing something – something a little closer to home? Consider, for example, the following statement in Prof. Schor’s book: “Beginning in the 1970s, expert observers were declaring the death of the ‘belonging’ process that had driven much competitive consumption and arguing that the establishment of an individual identity – rather than staying current with the Joneses – was becoming the name of the game. The new trend was to consume in a personal style, with products that signaled your individuality, your personal sense of taste and distinction.” Sounds much better, doesn’t it? People are not trying to “keep up with the Joneses” any more; they are consuming “in a personal style,” with products that signal their “individuality,” their “personal sense of taste and distinction.” That’s what we all do, right? – all of us who aren’t those spoiled rich people. Okay, so what’s the problem?

7. Please explain what marketers mean when they talk about “clusters” or “cluster groups.” What is the “irony,” according to Prof. Schor, of the shift to “individuality” in marketing?

8. By the way, if doubt that you’re in any sort of cluster group – most people do – you might trying Googling PRIZM. If you go to the PRIZM web site and punch in your area code, you will find there a description of the main groups that marketers think live in your area. Does the description seem accurate to you? (Please remember that, for many of you, you are living in your parents’ house – at least for now – so you may not particularly identify with those groups. Instead, you might consider punching in the zip code of the places or areas you generally like to hang out in. Do they have you (and your “crowd”) pegged now? There is nothing more common in America than people trying to express their “individuality” through the consumer items they purchase – nothing more common, that is, than people denying that in making consumer choices, they are actually trying to “belong” to some cluster group.

9. If you accepted the idea that expressing your “individuality by purchasing consumer items was ultimately a losing proposition (either some “merchant of cool” is trying to sell you an identity, or if you’re a trend-setter, soon some “cool hunter” will identify your style, and start marketing it to everyone else, thus making you, once again, “just like everybody else”) – if you accepted that idea, what rational response would you give to the problem?

* Either (A) blow up all advertizers (which is not perhaps the most rational response), or (B) give up trying to express your individuality through consumer items, and try expressing your individuality through things like courage, heroism, generosity, hospitality, honesty, integrity, friendship, justice, fairness, good will, etc. – all those things that we tend to avoid because buying a shirt from Abercrombie & Fitch or Hot Topic is just so much easier. And just so much more “cool” – or at least so much more “cool” as defined by MTV, Maxim, Cosmopolitan, Us, People, and all the rest of the advertisers and marketers in America.

10. “Unfortunately,” says Prof. Schor, “the government doesn't collect systematic data on ‘the American dream and its upscaling.’ But there is evidence of a sharp escalation over this period.” I won’t be asking you to remember the exact numbers in this case, but it’s worth taking not of them nonetheless. “In 1986 the Roper polling organization asked Americans how much income they would need to fulfill all their dreams. The answer was $50,000. By 1994 the ‘dreams fulfilling’ level of income had doubled, from $50,000 to $102,000.... Of course, $102,000 is not everyone's dream. In a consumption system premised on differences, dreams will also differ. And predictably, the higher one's income, the more one must have to feel fulfilled. Those making more than $50,000 said they would need $200,000 for total fulfillment, while lower-income people calculated that they would need only about $88,000 a year.” Okay, so here’s the question: How much is your “dreams fulfilling” level of income? And if you actually succeed in making that amount – whether it’s $50,000 or $250,000 – do you think your dreams will actually be fulfilled? Why or why not? By the way, while we’re on the subject, what are your “dreams”? What would it take to fulfill your dreams? Have you even given it any thought?

11. Here’s another passage from Schor’s text: “Other surveys also indicate an expansion of desire and expectation. Asked what constitutes ‘the good life,’ people focused far more on material goods and luxuries than they did in 1975. Items more likely to be part of the good life now than then include a vacation home, a swimming pool, a color TV, a second color TV, travel abroad, nice clothes, a car, a second car, a home of one's own, a job that pays

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/overspent%20american%20questions.html[8/20/2008 3:28:54 PM] overspent american questions

much more than the average, and a lot of money. Less likely, or no more likely, to yield the good life, according to respondents, were happy marriage, one or more children, an interesting job, and a job that contributes to the welfare of society.” Okay, so here’s a question: What (for you) constitutes a “good life”? Have you ever given it any thought? If not, why not? Don’t you want a good life? Do you assume that you can achieve a “good life” (however you define it) without having any idea what a “good life” is? Isn’t that a rather strange assumption? Isn’t that a bit like assuming you can drive to Mt. McKinley without having any idea where Mt. McKinley is? (It’s in Alaska, by the way, and in Alaska, they call it “Denali,” not “McKinley.” If you drove there from here, once you reached the Canadian border north of Seattle, you would be less than half way to your destination – maybe 40% of the trip. There are still some 500 miles of the road that have not yet been paved. Good luck trying to do it if you don’t know where you’re going.)

12. “Americans' concept of need has also clearly changed,” claims Prof. Schor. “Data from 1973, 1991, and 1996 reveal that a variety of consumer items are seen as necessities by an increasing number of people. About one-quarter of Americans consider home computers and answering machines to be necessities, one-third feel the same way about microwaves, more than 40 percent can't do without auto air conditioning, and just over half say home air conditioning is essential. VCRs and basic cable, which weren't included in the 1975 survey, are necessities to 13 and 17 percent of the nation's consumers. The list of things we absolutely have to have is growing.” The obvious next question is: What are “necessities” for you? (Remember how many Americans say that they spend nearly all their income on basic necessities? Well, now we’re giving some thought to what constitutes a “necessity.”) Is owning a microwave a “necessity”? How about cable? High-speed internet? Stereo? DVD player? Latest video game system and video games? Really cool car? Going to the clubs and looking really hot? Okay, let’s be honest, almost no one will say (in front of a crowd of people) that those things are necessities. They’re just things that we really, really, really want. (Although, when we’re young, we do say to our parents, things like: “But mom, I neeeeeeed it.” Perhaps you’ll remember the tone you used.) But here’s the bottom line: Are they things you could do without – and still be happy? Or if you didn’t have them, would you be dissatisfied with life? Are you dissatisfied with life now because you don’t have those things? And do you assume that getting those things will make you happier and more satisfied?

13. In another passage, Prof. Schor claims: “American consumers are often not conscious of being motivated by social status and are far more likely to attribute such motives to others than to themselves. We live with high levels of psychological denial about the connection between our buying habits and the social statements they make. Most Americans would deny that, by their spending, they are seeking status, in the usual meaning of the word – looking to position themselves in a higher economic stratum. They might point out that they don't want everything in sight, that purchases are often highly selective.” Does that statement describe you? Let me put this another way, by asking you to consider the following five questions:

(A) First, do you think that you are being influenced by advertizing, packaging, and marketing? (Be honest.) (B) Second, do you think many of your friends are influenced by advertizing, packaging, and marketing? (C) If you answered “yes” to the second question (friends are affected), but “no” to the first (I’m not affected), then let me ask you this. If I asked your friends and family members whether you are influenced by advertizing, packaging, and marketing, what would they say? (D) If your friends and family members tell me “yes,” that you are influenced by advertizing, packaging, and marketing, are you absolutely certain they’re wrong? (Let’s say, for example, that I ask your mother or father. What would they say?) (E) And finally: Would you have the courage to ask your friends and family whether they think you are being influenced by advertizing, packaging, and marketing? Or would you rather not? I mean, if you’re doing this at home, you could probably get up right now and ask your parents, couldn’t you? There’s always the cell phone to call your friends. Most of them are probably on speed dial. If you think you’re too busy, just ask for a one-word answer: Yes or No. It shouldn’t take more than 20 seconds or so. Are you still sitting there?

14. What does Prof. Schor mean when she says that, “One of the interesting things about much of the recent spate of spending is its defensive character”? Why “defensive”? Isn’t shopping supposed to be “fun”? Isn’t shopping an expression of your “individuality”?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/overspent%20american%20questions.html[8/20/2008 3:28:54 PM] overspent american questions

15. As Prof. Schor points out (and documented in detail in her previous book The Overworked American), Americans are working more and more hours every year. Despite working all these hours, how many households live paycheck to paycheck?

16. How much of its income is the average American household currently saving (as opposed to spending)? In 1995, what percentage of all American households indicated that they had done any saving at all in the previous year.

17. According to Prof. Schor, “As a result of low household savings, a substantial fraction of Americans live without an adequate financial cushion.” If one were to define an “adequate” financial cushion as the ability to sustain one’s family at current levels for at least a month – how long do you think it takes to find a new job if you lose the current one? – what percentage of American families could survive that long?

18. You are now receiving a top-flight college education (or so we flatter ourselves). In 1995, what percentage of families headed by college graduates did no savings at all? If the key to financial success in America is, as every financial planning expert will tell you, “spending less than you make, saving, and investing,” then what would be the most valuable lesson we could possibly teach you regarding your future financial success? (Look, it’s not the job of the Odyssey Program to make you financially successful. But facts are facts. We can tell you that the key to financial success is “spending less than you make, saving, and investing” – every financial planner does – but it’s up to you to put that lesson into practice. The question is simply, why don’t more “college-educated” people follow that advice?)

19. What does Prof. Schor mean when she claims that, “The intensification of competitive spending has affected more than family finances. There is also a boomerang effect on the public purse and collective consumption”?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/overspent%20american%20questions.html[8/20/2008 3:28:54 PM] overworked american questions

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Selections from: Juliet Schor, The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure (New York: Basic Books, 1993)

1. Over the last twenty years, has the amount of time Americans spend at their jobs increased or decreased? By how much?

2. Was the increase in work expected or unexpected? Why or why not?

3. It is widely known that American workers put in more hours of work per year than do their Western European counterparts. How much more? Does it strike you as odd that American workers should be putting in so much more work – and getting so much less time off – per year than workers in other parts of the world, especially since we are renowned for being the most productive and richest country in the world?

4. To produce the standard of living enjoyed by your great-grandparents in 1948, how many months of work per year would you need to work?

5. Why has leisure been such a conspicuous casualty of America’s prosperity? What answer does author Juliet Schor suggest?

6. According to Prof. Schor, what sorts of social problems has our increased workload contributed to?

7. According to Prof. Schor, “We live in what may be the most consumer‑oriented society in history.†How many more hours per year do Americans spend shopping than their counterparts in Western European countries?

8. According to Prof. Schor, what has been an important element that has resulted from, and made possible, America’s shopping frenzy? (We’ll have more to say on the financial drawbacks of our current situation in due time. The statistics may startle you.)

9. Has the increasing consumption of the last forty years made Americans generally happier, or less happy?

10. Has the increasing consumption of the last forty years made Americans generally more satisfied than in the past when they spent less? (A related question: Have you ever been to a poor country in Latin America or Asia? Were the people distinctly less happy and less satisfied than we are in the U.S.? Or not? Explain.)

11. The general director of General Motors' Research Labs, Charles Kettering, stated that the mission of business is what? (What phrase did he use?)

12. In the early days, what was the attitude of trade unionists (and Catholic labor priests such as Monsignor Ryan) to consumerism?

13. What did Monsignor Ryan think the working men and women of America would do with the free time afforded them by their employers? Is that what contemporary Americans actually do with their free time? If not, is that a criticism of Ryan’s statement, or of what contemporary Americans do with their free time?

14. Compare Monsignor Ryan’s attitude toward work and leisure with the attitude exhibited by Josef Pieper in Leisure, the Basis of Culture.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/overworked%20american%20questions.html[8/20/2008 3:29:06 PM] overworked american questions

15. According to Prof. Schor, “The debates of the 1920s clearly laid out the options available to the nation. On the one hand, the path advocated by labor and social reformers: take productivity growth in the form of increases in free time, rather than the expansion of output; limit private consumption, discourage luxuries, and emphasize public goods such as education and culture. On the other hand, the plan of business: maintain current working hours and aim for maximal economic growth. This implied the encouragement of "discretionary" consumption, the expansion of new industries, and a culture of unlimited desires. Production would come to ‘fill a void that it has itself created.†Which of the two options did the nation adopt?

16. According to Prof. Schor, what is the problem with the system of “keeping up with the Joneses� What (to put the same question in another form) is the problem if everyone’s income goes up by 10% – both yours and your next-door neighbor’s?

17. According to Prof. Schor, “It's not easy to get off the income treadmill and into a new, more leisured life style. Mrs. Smith won't do it on her own ....†Why not? Explain why “Mrs. Smith†and “Mrs. Jones†are stuck in a classic “Prisoner’s Dilemma.†[If you don’t know what a “Prisoner’s Dilemma†is, look it up.]

18. According to Prof. Schor: “A second vicious cycle arises from the fact that the satisfactions gained from consumption are often short‑lived.†Please explain what she means.

19. When asked, do Americans generally affirm consumerism, or do they generally reject “materialist values�

20. What tends to happen in America when workers are granted a pay increase?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/overworked%20american%20questions.html[8/20/2008 3:29:06 PM] people like us

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Consider Before and After viewing the Video "People Like Us: Class in America"

1. According to the film-makers, how do people usually identify others in this culture? Similarly, how do they give an "identity" to themselves?

2. What is your view of the four "popular" girls (all in a row) from Anderson High School? They know that other kids are "jealous" of them, and they admit that "they would be too," but their parents just like to treat them to things like cars, clothes, and trips. Do you agree with the one girl's assessment that, "It's not just because we have so many great things, but because they can see that there's so much to us"? Is that why people are so jealous? Or is jealousy the right word?

3. At one point in the film, one young girl, having just been teased by some kids who were being bussed-in to their school from another part of town, makes the following comment: "See those kids? They're ghetto kids." What narrative does she have in mind into which she fits these kids?

4. At one point, the film-makers compare the kind of future career expectations held by the "preps" versus those held by the "non-preps," specifically the Latino and Black kids. What are the differences?

5. Note, in particular, that one young man says, "I want to be a lawyer, but I don't think I'll get to be. That's too much." Is he right? Is that "too much"? Should he set his sights lower?

6. Another wonderful young woman from the same group of kids says, at another point: "We've got to represent, because if we don't, them other kids will just up and punk us because they know they can." What do you think? Is it important to "represent"? If so, what should she "represent"? And how should she "represent"?

7. What is your view of the two girls who are "loners," one of whom is Latino, the other African-American? According to the Latino girl, she is accepted neither by the Anglos or the Hispanics? Why, in particular, won't the Hispanics accept her? She suffers from the same discrimination; she comes from the same background. Why don't they know what to do with her?

8. Near the end of the documentary, one of the commentators says something to the effect that , "I feel we all lose something by living in a society that is so segregated by class differences." Do we?

9. Is there any way to help heal the differences and divisions from which the students at Anderson High School (and so many others) suffer? Would a class on "Racial Sensitivity" take care of the problem? Why or why not?

10. It's relatively easy to ask questions about other people. They are, in a sense, "things" outside you that can be observed and judged. What is harder is taking an honest look at ourselves. There was an ancient Greek proverb, written above the door to the temple of Apollo at Delphi, that gave the following advice: "Know Thyself." Okay, so here is my question: How about you? Do you define yourself largely by the neighborhood in which you live, the clothes you wear, the type of car you drive, and the kinds of music you listen to? Are you much affected by advertizing that tries to sell a certain sort of "identity" -- a certain sort of "belonging" or being "cool"? Do you buy things, for example, because you think it will express your "individuality" -- an "individuality" that looks amazingly similar to the models in Vogue or Women's Fitness or the athletes at the Olympics? If not, ask yourself this: How about your friends? Are they much affected by advertizing? Do they try to buy an identity similar to one they've seen on television or in magazine ads? If you answered "yes" to the second question about your friends (they are affected by advertizing), but "no" to the first question about yourself (I'm not affected), ask yourself this: What would your friends say about you? Would they agree with

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/people%20like%20us.html[8/20/2008 3:28:52 PM] people like us

you? Or would they claim, just as you did, "no" I'm not affected by advertizing, but "yes," my friends are?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/people%20like%20us.html[8/20/2008 3:28:52 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 1

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Josef Pieper, Leisure, the Basis of Culture, Chapter I Take a look at the first epigraph on the page that faces the first page of chapter I. It reads: “But the gods, taking pity on human beings – gave them regularly recurring divine festivals, as a means of refreshment from their fatigue; they gave them the Muses, and Apollo, and Dionysius as the leaders of the Muses, to the end that, after refreshing themselves in the company of the gods, they might return to an upright posture.” First, some notes on the text: The Muses: In Greek mythology, the Muses were a sisterhood of goddesses – their number was sometimes reported to be three, sometimes nine – who were said to inspire the creation of great art. It is from their name that we take the English word “music.” But music was not the only form of art thought to be inspired by the Muses. Indeed, in the Greek world, poetry, whether epic poems such as Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey, or the lyric poetry of Sappho, and even many Greek tragedies, were often accompanied by music. Many of these works – especially the tragedies – were performed, or composed specifically for use in, the major Greek religious festivals. So, for example, it was common, on a major religious festival, for all the citizens of Athens to gather together for a large feast, during which the wine would flow freely and many citizens would go to the theater to watch one of the great tragedies of, for example, Aeschylus, Euripides, or Sophocles. So, although we might be tempted to associate the Muses solely with “music,” during the ancient Greek period, they were associated with all of the great arts of creative “making” (in Greek, poesis): music, dance, theater, sculpture, painting, and poetry. Apollo: Apollo, the sun god, was not only considered to be the god of reason, but was also often considered to be the leader of the Muses. You might consider before class the significance of suggesting that the “god of reason” was the leader and guide of the Muses – those who inspire the arts and crafts. It is interesting, is it not, that we hear echoes of the Greek word “Muse” not only in a word with festive connotations, such as “amuse,” but also in a word with more studious connotations, such as to “muse upon” a text or idea. Dionysius, or Dionysos in Greek, was the god of wine, although he is also often associated with the harvest (festivals were often held at the time of harvest) and with the theater (theater events, as I have already indicated, were often held during festivals and often included some drinking of wine). He is also known by the name Bacchus, thus the frenzied rituals inspired by this god (and the drinking of his brew) were sometimes called bakcheia in Greek, or in English, “bacchanals” (the adjective, which sometimes comes in handy, would be “bacchanalian”). Dionyius was also associated, by Plato for example (see his dialogue The Symposium, which is carried out in the context of a long drinking party), with a kind of divine madness that could itself be the mouthpiece of truth and wisdom. At the end of the Nineteenth Century, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was to become famous for his claim that human life always involves a struggle between the rational aspects of human nature (what Nietzsche calls the “Apollonian”) and the more passionate or “ecstatic” aspects of human nature (which he describes as the “Dionysian”). Greek tragedy, thought Nietzsche was born out of a mixture of these two elements.

Now some questions to consider.

1. What do you suppose is the significance of using this particular passage as a sort of “preface” to his book? Does it give you a sense of what might be coming? When we get to the end of the book, I will ask you a similar question. I will ask: “Now that you’ve finished Josef Pieper’s book, why do you suppose that he used the epigraph at the beginning? What significance did it have?” Right now, you can give only a preliminary answer. Later, you will compare this answer with the one you will give having read the entire book, and ask yourself: “How close was I to guessing the thesis of the book?” As you read, please keep this little epigraph in the back of your mind. *Here is a hint to help you with the previous question. Look at the “Preface to the English Edition” on the previous pages. There Pieper describes what he calls the “common origin or foundation” of the two essays in your book. (We have only assigned the first essay on “leisure,” and not the second, on “the philosophical act.”) What, according to Pieper, is the thought that is the “common origin and foundation” of the two essays in the book, and how does it relate to the first epigraph we discussed above? * Common origin and foundation: “Culture depends for its very existence on leisure [which, Pieper suggests, is not merely time off from work, but also freedom from work, not merely in terms of time, but in terms of one’s mind-set

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%201.html[8/20/2008 3:37:16 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 1

about work and life], and leisure, in its turn, is not possible unless it has a durable and living link with the cultus, with divine worship.”

2. Pieper says on the first page of chapter I (p. 3 in your edition), that “We are engaged in the re-building of a house.” Pieper wrote this book in Germany in the summer of 1947. What do you suppose he means when he wrote to his fellow Germans: “We are engaged in the re-building of a house”? * In general, the re-building of Germany’s bombed out cities, towns, and infrastructure

3. Interestingly, although Pieper admits that there is much work to be done reconstructing war-torn Germany, he says that what is important, is “not only securing survival,” but what else? Why would this second dimension have been as important as the first in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the Holocaust, and the dominance of the Nazi Party in Germany? * See p. 3, par. 2: “also putting in order again our entire moral and intellectual heritage” * Pieper understood that the nation had not only crippled itself physically by the war it had waged, but it had crippled itself morally and spiritually as well by its participation in the Nazi atrocities. * Pieper’s question to the German people was, in essence, “Now what must we do to rebuild Germany – not only physically, but also in terms of the moral and intellectual character of German society and culture?”

4. What, according to Josef Pieper, is one of the foundations of Western European culture? Does this comment strike you as odd? If so, why? Are you pleased to hear that leisure is one of the foundations of Western European culture? What do you suppose your parents would say if you told them that you were reading a book which argues that leisure was one of the foundations of Western European culture? * See p. 3, par. 3: “leisure is one of these foundations”

5. What is the Greek word for leisure? The Greek word for leisure has come down to us in what English word? Does that seem odd to you? Have you ever before thought there was a relationship between “school” and “leisure”? (Then again, if you weren’t enrolled as a full-time college student, what would you probably be doing? Or to put this another way, if you have any friends who aren’t in school, what are they doing while you’re in school? Unless they are independently wealthy, they’re probably working a job. And even if you too have a part-time job, isn’t it the case that you need time off from your job in order to attend school? Does it make any sense to you now why the ancient Greeks would have thought there might be a relationship between “school” and “freedom from work” – at least a certain type of work?) * See bottom p. 3, top of 4: The Greek word for leisure is skolei, which is the origin of the Latin schola, from which we get the English “school”

6. Why, according to Pieper, has the original meaning and true significance of “leisure” been practically forgotten today? * See p. 4, par. 1: it has been forgotten in today’s leisure-less culture of “total work;” “in order to win our way to a real understanding of leisure, we must confront the contradiction that arises from our overemphasis on the world of work.”

7. What does Pieper think of this phrase from German sociologist Max Weber’s famous book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (note, the saying has to do with Weber’s estimation of the modern world; it has nothing to do per se with Protestantism): “One does not only work in order to live, but one lives for the sake of one’s work”? * See p. 4, par. 2: He offers the following: “We work in order to be at leisure.”

8. Note, however, that Weber’s saying might more charitably be interpreted as suggesting that, in the modern world (unlike the ancient world), we do not merely work in order to secure our survival – merely in order to gain things such as food, clothing, housing, and shelter – we choose our work, and being successful at that work becomes one of the major goals of our life. But isn’t there still a danger here? Isn’t it still possible that we’re defining our identity in terms of our “work” – our “job” – and not taking sufficient account of other important dimensions? The fundamental questions thus remain: How important is work? How much of our lives and our identities are bound up with our jobs? Are there other important things as well as work? Are we paying attention to them as well? What are they, and how much effort are we expending on them? College education, most people assume, is about “getting a job.” This is not untrue. But consider this: Should a college education help prepare you in other aspects of your life as well? Should it help prepare you to become a more complete human person? Should it help prepare you to live a “good life” – by doing things, for example, like asking you to consider what “living the good life” is? If college is meant to prepare you for “the real world,” and file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%201.html[8/20/2008 3:37:16 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 1

“the real world” involves both work and other things beyond work, should college help prepare you for those “other things” too? If so, why? If not, why not?

9. What are the Greek and Latin words for “work” (and by this we mean the kind of work you do when you are employed)? What, according to the philosopher Aristotle, is the “pivot” around which everything turns? * See p. 5, top: Greek: a-scholia; Latin (neg-otium): in both cases, literally “not-leisure” * the pivot around which everything turns is leisure

10. According to Pieper, what Christian concept was built on the Aristotelian concept of leisure? * See p. 5, par. 3: “the Christian concept of the ‘contemplative life’ (the vita contemplativa) was built on the Aristotelian concept of leisure

11. Pieper suggests, furthermore, that the distinction between the “Liberal Arts” and the “Servile Arts” also has its origins in the ancient Greek concept of leisure. In the next several chapters, you will be introduced more thoroughly to the distinction. For now, you might simply note, which of the two, says Pieper, is not appropriate for the “holy rest” of the Sabbath? To follow up, you might simply consider for yourself: What sorts of things do I do (other than sleep) when I have time, and I want to “rest”? Do you ever take time simply to rest and “be you”? If not, why not? If you do, what sorts of things do you do, and what do they reveal about “being you”? * See p. 5, near bottom: “when the issue of ‘servile work’ arises, the kind of activity that is deemed inappropriate for the ‘holy rest’ of the Sabbath, Sundays, or Holidays”

12. Pieper suggests at the bottom of p. 6 that he will not be using the word “worker” in his essay “in the sense of a distinct kind of occupation” – that is to say, any sort of occupation in particular. His “target,” therefore, is not any particular kind of work, or even “having a job,” both of which he will admit are necessary and good human activities. What he is after, in other words, is a particular attitude toward the world of work, and indeed, oftentimes, toward life itself. He is after the attitude, which he thinks is becoming more common in the modern world, that views “work” (in the sense of a “job”) as being the whole description of what is meaningful about human life. Now a question: What is it, according to Pieper, that “looms behind the new claims being made for ‘work’ and the ‘worker’”? What, in other words, is Pieper going to have to “dig more deeply into” in order to get at the roots of the problem? * See p. 7: “An altered conception of the human being as such, and a new interpretation of the meaning of human existence as such, looms behind the new claims being made for “work” and the “worker.” * The task at hand is “digging more deeply to the very roots of a philosophical and theological understanding of the human person.

13. Pope John Paul II, in a 1981 encyclical “On the Dignity of Human Labor” entitled Laborem Exercens, suggested that to understand the dignity of human work, we must understand that work has two dimensions: an objective as well as a subjective dimension. The objective dimension of work is the thing produced, whether it be cars, electrical circuits, or a painting by Rembrandt. Talking about the subjective dimension of work directs our attention at the one working: the worker. Regarding work, then, Pope John Paul II says the following: “work bears a particular mark of man and of humanity, the mark of a person operating within a community of persons. And this mark decides its interior characteristics; in a sense it constitutes [work’s] very nature.” And again, later in the same document, he insists: “even in the age of ever more mechanized ‘work’, the proper subject of work continues to be man.” Finally, in his conclusion at the end of the encyclical, the Pope says this: “On the basis of these illuminations emanating from the Source himself, the Church has always proclaimed what we find expressed in modern terms in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council: ‘Just as human activity proceeds from man, so it is ordered towards man. For when a man works he not only alters things and society, he develops himself as well. He learns much, he cultivates his resources, he goes outside of himself and beyond himself. Rightly understood, this kind of growth is of greater value than any external riches which can be garnered.’ ... Hence, the norm of human activity is this: that in accord with the divine plan and will, it should harmonize with the genuine good of the human race, and allow people as individuals and as members of society to pursue their total vocation and fulfil it." How are Pope John Paul II’s concerns similar to those of Josef Pieper? Note that the one is writing about the nature of “work” and the other on the nature of “leisure,” so you might expect their perspectives to be absolutely opposite. But in fact, they are very similar. For both men, the questions about “work” and “leisure” bring us back to a more fundamental question. What is it? * It brings us back to the fundamental question: What is the nature of the human person? * For Pieper: “The task at hand is “digging more deeply to the very roots of a philosophical and theological understanding of the human person.” For Pope John Paul II, “the subject of work continues to be man.”

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%201.html[8/20/2008 3:37:16 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 1

14. Compare the following text from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “On the Dignity of Human Labor” (Laborem Exercens) with the chapter you’ve just read by Josef Pieper. How are they similar? How are they different? The following selection is from section 6, one of the most important sections of the encyclical – a section entitled “Work in the Subjective Sense: Man as the Subject of Work”:

In order to continue our analysis of work, an analysis linked with the word of the Bible telling man that he is to subdue the earth, we must concentrate our attention on work in the subjective sense, much more than we did on the objective significance ... Man has to subdue the earth and dominate it, because as the "image of God" he is a person, that is to say, a subjective being capable of acting in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself, and with a tendency to self-realization. As a person, man is therefore the subject of work. As a person he works, he performs various actions belonging to the work process; independently of their objective content, these actions must all serve to realize his humanity, to fulfil the calling to be a person that is his by reason of his very humanity.

The ancient world introduced its own typical differentiation of people into classes according to the type of work done. Work which demanded from the worker the exercise of physical strength, the work of muscles and hands, was considered unworthy of free men, and was therefore given to slaves. By broadening certain aspects that already belonged to the Old Testament, Christianity brought about a fundamental change of ideas in this field, taking the whole content of the Gospel message as its point of departure, especially the fact that the one who, while being God, became like us in all things devoted most of the years of his life on earth to manual work at the carpenter's bench. This circumstance constitutes in itself the most eloquent "Gospel of work", showing that the basis for determining the value of human work is not primarily the kind of work being done but the fact that the one who is doing it is a person. The sources of the dignity of work are to be sought primarily in the subjective dimension, not in the objective one. Such a concept practically does away with the very basis of the ancient differentiation of people into classes according to the kind of work done. This does not mean that, from the objective point of view, human work cannot and must not be rated and qualified in any way. It only means that the primary basis of the value of work is man himself, who is its subject. This leads immediately to a very important conclusion of an ethical nature: however true it may be that man is destined for work and called to it, in the first place work is "for man" and not man "for work". Through this conclusion one rightly comes to recognize the pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the objective one. Given this way of understanding things, and presupposing that different sorts of work that people do can have greater or lesser objective value, let us try nevertheless to show that each sort is judged above all by the measure of the dignity of the subject of work, that is to say the person, the individual who carries it out. On the other hand: independently of the work that every man does, and presupposing that this work constitutes a purpose – at times a very demanding one – of his activity, this purpose does not possess a definitive meaning in itself. In fact, in the final analysis it is always man who is the purpose of the work, whatever work it is that is done by man – even if the common scale of values rates it as the merest "service", as the most monotonous even the most alienating work.

* Differences: The Pope’s discussion of the value of work and his more critical attitude toward the ancient world’s ifferentiation into classes according to the kind of work done: Work which demanded from the worker the exercise of physical strength, the work of muscles and hands, was considered unworthy of free men, and was erefore given to slaves.” The Pope reinterprets this ancient idea in the light of the biblical message that Jesus was a carpenter who for most of his life did precisely this sort of “work of muscles and nds.” Similarities: The perspective that says “work is for man and not man for work. The perspective that says we must consider hat it is to be a full and complete human person, living a full and meaningful human life. In other words, “work” (whether manual labor or college professor) is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. ur question (and Pieper’s), therefore, will be: What is the ultimate end that can motivate our work and make our lives meaningful?

15. Do you suppose that Prof. Pieper and Pope John Paul II mean to negate the meaning and value of work – indeed hard ork? Or are they suggesting, rather, that work should be understood as a means to an other end; that it be considered a part (an important part, but a part nonetheless) of a whole and complete man life?

16. Do the positions laid out by Josef Pieper and Pope John Paul II seem crazy to you? (They certainly aren’t the “usual”

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%201.html[8/20/2008 3:37:16 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 1

ways we think about work and leisure.) Or do their views make sense? If you believed that what they were saying was true and took those truths seriously, would it change anything in your life? If so, what? (Don’t worry; we won’t be testing you on this last question. But that doesn’t make it unimportant. Quite the contrary: The truly important questions are ones that life tests you on, not school. All we can do is invite you to reflect on the important questions about the meaning and purpose of life. Answering those questions is something you do not only with your mind, but with your life. And those are things you must choose for yourself.)

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%201.html[8/20/2008 3:37:16 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Josef Pieper, Leisure, the Basis of Culture, Chapter II

1. In the previous chapter, Pieper discussed how in the ancient world the “intellectual life” had often been associated with “leisure” and freedom from work. So too, at the beginning of this chapter, he begins by re-stating that same theme “Up until this time (at least from the point of view of someone who worked with his hands) the province of intellectual enterprise tended to be looked upon as a kind of paradise, where nobody needed to work.” In other words, something that used to be the case is so no longer. It used to be the case that the intellectual life was associated with not working. But now, says Pieper, by a strange cultural transformation, the intellectual life itself has also become associated with work. To get a sense of what he means, try this thought experiment. Let’s say your father calls you at school and asks, “What are you doing?” – and you answer: “I’m thinking.” He might be tempted to reply: “Stop wasting time and get to work! We’re paying a lot of money for that education.” But doesn’t such a response suggest that “thinking” must justify itself as a kind of work? So, for example, if your father asked you, “What are you doing?” – and you answered: “I’m working diligently on my classes,” he probably would be a lot happier. As long as “thinking” can be justified as a kind of work, then it is not “wasting time.” But just sitting and thinking – about the world, about the meaning and purpose of life, about what makes a rose beautiful – well, to many people, that seems just a bit too frivolous. Shouldn’t you be doing something useful? Do you understand now what Pieper means when he talks about the “world of total work”? But we might point out two things: First, many of the most important discoveries in history were made by men and women who were inspired by their wonder and amazement at the world to sit and think. And secondly, perhaps thinking, pondering, and questioning have a value beyond whether they can make us money or produce wonderful new products. Perhaps thinking, pondering, and questioning are activities that human beings are simply meant to do. Perhaps they are the activities that make human life more human. Keep these things in mind as you read the remainder of the chapter.

2. Pieper dedicates the first part of this chapter to elucidating a distinction between two ways of “knowing.” The first way of knowing Pieper calls ratio, which traditionally (when people spoke Latin) was the Latin word for “reason” or the power of discursive thought: the power, says Pieper, “of searching and re-searching, abstracting, refining, and concluding.” The second way of knowing Pieper calls intellectus, which was the Latin word for “understanding.” Intellectus, says Pieper, refers to the ability of “simply looking” (simplex intuitus), “to which the truth presents itself as a landscape presents itself to the eye.” Your job as you read is to figure out what Pieper is trying to get at by means of this distinction. So, for example, look on p. 9 at his description of two different kinds of perception. (“Perception” is different from “knowing.” “Perception” is simpler. It is what we mean when we talk about “sense perception.” You can understand the difference between “perception”and “knowing” if you think of a time when, driving at dusk, you have “seen” something on the road in front of you, but haven’t known what it is. Although you “perceive” the object, you don’t “know” it.) Thus, on p. 9, Pieper distinguishes between two ways of looking at a rose. The first way he describes as a “relaxed” looking: that is when “we are merely looking at the rose and not observing or studying it, counting or measuring its various features.” This latter sort of “looking,” says Pieper – the kind that involves “studying, counting, and measuring” – would not be a “relaxed” action. It would be, he suggests, rather, “an act of aggression.” But, he continues: “simply looking at something, gazing at it, ‘taking it in,’ is merely to open our eyes to receive the things that present themselves to us, that come to us without any need for ‘effort’ on our part to ‘possess’ them. Does this distinction between merely “gazing at” a rose and a more “aggressive” sort of looking, which involves “studying, counting, and measuring” it in order to “possess” it or “control” it – does this distinction make any sense to you? Have you ever looked at the world – or read a book or simply sat and listened to another person, for that matter – file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:29:05 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

simply with the desire to let it disclose itself to you in all its fullness, and not with the intention of “using” it, “controlling” it, or “possessing” it?

3. In subsequent pages, Pieper moves from “perception” to “knowing,” and asks: What about on the level of knowing: Is there such a thing as an “intellectual vision” that is “relaxed” – that involves “opening ourselves to receive the things that present themselves to us,” and come to us without any need for “effort” on our part to “possess” or “control” them? What do modern philosophers (such as Immanuel Kant) say about the possibility of such a “relaxed” knowing? What did ancient and medieval philosophers say? * Modern philosophers such as Kant answer: no. Ancient and medieval philosophers say: yes.

4. According to Pieper, of these two – ratio and intellectus – which is the distinctively human manner of knowing? Which is the manner of human knowing that man shares with the angels? Which sort of knowing does Pieper thinks helps to serve the highest fulfillment of what it is to be human? * properly human: ratio * shared with angels: intellectus * the highest fulfillment of what it is to be human is the superhuman: the divine: intellectus

5. How did the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus describe this higher form of intellectual knowing? * “Listening-in to the being of things.”

6. Let’s think about this phrase: “Listening-in to the being of things.” What do you suppose that means? Let me give you two examples that might help. The first example involves a line from a poem (“The Dry Salvages”) by poet T. S. Eliot. In that poem – the third of the so-called Four Quartets – Eliot speaks of: “...music heard so deeply. That it is not heard at all, but you are the music While the music lasts.”

Does Eliot’s line make any sense to you? Have you ever had such an experience? If not with music, then perhaps with Nature?

7. The second example involves some famous comments made by the Twentieth Century German philosopher Martin Heidegger on a painting by the artist Van Gogh sometimes known by the name “Peasant Shoes.” In reality, Van Gogh painted several different images of shoes during his life – all of them old and rugged, but not the same pair of shoes twice – all of them entitled, simply, “A Pair of Shoes.” The painting that Heidegger had in mind, however, is probably the following:

Having seen this painting, Heidegger wrote the following: “From Van Gogh’s painting, we cannot even tell where these shoes are. There is nothing surrounding this pair of peasant shoes in or to which they might belong – only an undefined space. There are not even clods of soil from the field or the field-path sticking to them, which would at least hint at their use. And pair of peasant shoes and nothing more. And yet – “From the dark opening of the worn insides of the shoes the toilsome tread of the worker stares forth. In the stiffly rugged heaviness of the shoes there is the accumulated tenacity of her slow trudges through the far-spreading

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:29:05 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

and ever-uniform furrows of the field swept by a raw wind. On the leather lie the dampness and richness of the soil. Under the soles vibrates the silent call of the earth, its quiet gift of the ripening grain [in the summer] and its unexplained self-refusal in the fallow desolation of the wintry field. This equipment [the shoes] is pervaded by uncomplaining worry as the certainty of bread, the wordless joy of having once more withstood want, the trembling ... and shivering at the surrounding menace of death. This equipment [the shoes] belongs to the earth, and it finds its place in the world of the peasant woman.... “But perhaps it is only in the picture that we notice all this about the shoes. The peasant woman, on the other hand, simply wears them. If only this simple wearing were so simple. When she takes off her shoes late in the evening, in deep but healthy fatigue, and reaches out for them again in the still dim dawn, or passes them by on the day of rest, she knows all this without noticing or reflecting...” This quality of the shoes – known by the woman without reflection, but which we must somehow discover – was revealed, says Heidegger: “Not by a description and explanation of a pair of shoes actually present [such as might be given by a scientist]; not by a report about the process of making shoes [such as might be given by a reporter]; and also not by the observation of the actual use of shoes occurring here and there [such as might be given by a sociologist]; but only by bringing ourselves before Van Gogh’s painting. This painting spoke. In the nearness of the work we were suddenly somewhere else than we usually tend to be .... What happens here? What is at work in the work? Van Gogh’s painting is the disclosure of what the equipment, the pair of peasant shoes, is in truth.” Thus, concludes Heidegger: “The art work opens up [“reveals”] in its own way the Being of things.” That is to say, the art work discloses in and by means of the thing (in this case, a simple pair of shoes) a whole way of life -- that is to say, a whole way of “existing in the world.” Now some questions. First: Does Heidegger’s comment about art “opening up in its own way the Being of things” make any sense to you? Do you have any examples of your own? Does it help you to make any more sense of the phrase, “Listening-in to the being of things”? Does it help you to understand what Josef Pieper is talking about when he compares “contemplating” a rose (or a pair of old shoes) versus “studying, counting, and measuring” it in order to “possess” it or “control” it? Note, if you will, that “listening-in to the being of things” does not mean staring at the shoes blankly and stupidly. It is not mean emptying your brain. It may, however, mean getting yourself out of the way to allow the thing to speak to you. Plenty of people undoubtedly have heard a piece of music or looked at an old pair of shoes and said to themselves nothing more than, “What’s the title of this song?” or “That’s an ugly old pair of shoes.” Just as plenty of people have looked at the sky without wondering “Why is it blue?” or added salt to water without wondering “Why do the little granules disappear?” But is there something to be gained by gazing at the world in wonder, not because you think you can “use” it or “make” something out of it – which aren’t in and of themselves bad impulses – but just because you want to understand it? Perhaps for no other reason than because what it is to be human is simply to question – to want to know? Is there a difference, for example, if a person asks: “What is this song?” and means not, “What is the title?” but: “What is this? How does the composer or performer do that? How does such a sound come to be?” If so, what is the difference? Is there a difference between your mother looking into your closet and asking: “What’s the story with this old pair of shoes? Why haven’t you thrown them away?” and you, looking into your grandmother’s closet and asking: “What’s the story with this old pair of shoes? Why have you kept them all these years? What happened that made them so important?” If so, what is the difference? Is there a difference between looking at a whale and asking: “How much oil do you suppose that thing would produce?” versus wondering “How in the world does a creature that big get enough food to sustain itself?” If so, what is the difference? Now look back at all the examples I gave in the previous paragraphs concerning the song and the shoes, and ask yourself this: If you are trying to memorize or remember the names of songs for an exam, is it work? On the other hand, if you are fascinated by a piece of music and you listen to it over and over in order to understand it more deeply, is it work? How about this: If your mother asks you for an explanation of why there is an old, dirty pair of shoes in your closet, is it work – both for you and for her? (Do you think it’s any less painful for her to hear the explanation than it is for you to give it?) If, on the other hand, you ask your grandmother for the story behind an old, beloved pair of shoes, is it “work” when you listen to her tell the tale? Explain the differences. Are you starting to understand why Pieper claims (on p. 13, for example) that “the simple act of the intellectus is not work?” Explain. Are you finally starting to get a sense of what Pieper means by his distinction between ratio and intellectus? Are you starting to understand, for example, why he thinks the intellectual life, properly speaking, involves both? file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:29:05 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

Explain. And given what Pieper thinks about the relationship between intellectual and ratio, what sort of education for students do you suppose he would favor? * Last question: He probably would favor – and he does – a liberal arts education that educates both ratio as well as fostering an appreciation for and development of intellectus.

8. At the bottom of p. 13, Pieper suggests that the statement “knowing is work,” is a statement “with two sides to it.” It implies, he says, “a demand on the human being, and a demand made by the human being.” What is the demand on the human being? What, on the other hand, is the claim made by man? * The demand made on the human being: If you want to understand something, you have to work. * The demand made by the human being: If knowing is work, exclusively work, then the one who knows, knows only the truth of his own, subjective activity [he knows only his own thoughts], and nothing else. There is nothing in his knowing that is not the fruit of his own efforts: there is nothing “received” in it.”

9. Reflecting upon the concept of “intellectual work,” Pieper concludes that, if we judge intellectual activity the way we judge work, then we would be drawn to the conclusion that “the truth of what is known is determined by the effort put into knowing it.” What does Pieper think of this conclusion? What do you think of this conclusion? Do you, for example, agree with the idea that, even if you’ve given the wrong answers, you should get an A in a class or on an exam because you put forth a lot of effort? Is the phrase: “But I worked really, really hard on this [fill in the blank] – exam, paper, test, assignment” – part of your vocabulary? (If it is, here’s a bit of advice: Forget that phrase. You won’t find it useful anymore – either in college or, ironically enough, in the “working world.”)

10. Pieper suggests that the Cynic philosopher Antisthenes was what he calls “a surprisingly ‘modern’ figure,” who “was responsible for the first paradigm of the ‘worker’ – rather, he represented it himself.” Describe the character of this man Antisthenes? Is he like you? Is he like anyone you know? To what does Pieper compare this man Antisthenes? What sort of education do you suppose Antisthenes would favor for the young? What sort of things do you suppose he would think are best left out? * As an ethicist of independence [rugged individualism?], this Antisthenes had no feeling for cultic celebration, which he preferred attacking with “enlightened [that is to say, cynical] wit.” He was “a-musical” and a foe of the Muses: poetry only interested him for its moral content. He felt no responsiveness to Eros (he said he “would like to kill Aphrodite,” the goddess of beauty and love). And as a flat Realist, he had no belief in immortality (what really matters, he said, was to live rightly “on this earth”). * He is the very “type” of the modern “workaholic.” * Antisthenes would undoubtedly want a very “useful” education: that is to say, one useful for business, but with a smattering of ethics (moral content). He wouldn’t have much use for things like music, theater, cultic celebration, or something like theology. And as for literature, art, or poetry, he would always read merely to get the “moral content,” not to appreciate the beauty of the work. * God only knows how he would have chosen his wife. One presumes either because he found her “useful” or “good moral content.”

11. On pp. 15 and 17, Pieper compares what the German philosopher Immanuel Kant has to say about the relationship between our natural inclinations and morality with what the medieval theologian St. Thomas Aquinas has to say on the same subject. Please compare the two, and please indicate the role of “love” in Aquinas’s view. * Kant: Whatever someone does my inclination – and that means, without effort – is a betrayal of true morality. Indeed, according to Kant, the moral law by definition is opposed to natural inclination. The Good is difficult, and the voluntary effort put into forcing oneself to do something becomes the standard for moral goodness. The more difficult thing must be the higher good. * Aquinas: The essence of virtue consists more in the Good than in the Difficult. When something is more difficult, it is not for that reason necessarily more worthwhile. Note: it is NOT “virtue makes it possible for us to MASTER our natural inclinations.” No, that would be Kant. For Aquinas: “virtue perfects us to that we can follow our natural inclinations IN THE RIGHT WAY.” The highest realizations of moral goodness are known to be such precisely in this, that they take place EFFORTLESSLY – that is to say, because it of their essence to arise from LOVE.

12. Above, I asked the question, “is there something to be gained by gazing at the world in wonder, not because file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:29:05 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

you think you can “use” it or “make” something out of it – which aren’t in and of themselves bad impulses – but just because you want to understand it? Perhaps for no other reason than because what it is to be human is simply to question – to want to know?” Let me suggest for a moment that perhaps one of those “natural inclinations” we’ve been talking about is a “natural inclination” to know the truth of things. Thomas Aquinas thinks we have such a natural inclination. From what Josef Pieper has said about Thomas Aquinas and the natural inclinations, what do you suppose Aquinas would say about the degree of difficulty and our natural inclination to know the truth? What would be the role of love on such a view? Now go back to the examples I gave you above of asking about some music you love or asking your grandmother about some old shoes. What makes this “asking” so much more “effortless” than the kind of studying you often do in school? A related question: Is it possible to “know” the world without “loving” the world? Is it possible to “know” the truth without “loving” the truth? What would Pieper say? Would it make any sense to you if I told you that a liberal arts education is about discovering what you love – “discovering” in the sense of “finding out” what it is you love, and then, once you’ve found it, seeking to “discover it” more and more? * When something is more difficult [like studying], it is not for that reason necessarily more worthwhile. Note: it is NOT “virtue makes it possible for us to MASTER our natural inclinations.” No, that would be Kant. For Aquinas, “virtue perfects us so that we can follow our natural inclinations IN THE RIGHT WAY.” * The goal of “education” on this view is to open ourselves up more fully to our natural desire to know. * Again: “The highest realizations of moral goodness are known to be such precisely in this, that they take place EFFORTLESSLY – that is to say, because it of their essence to arise from LOVE.” * Education follows not from slave labor, but from love of the world and a desire to understand it. * Isn’t what makes the “asking” about the music and the shoes so much easier the fact that you LOVE them?

13. What does Pieper describe (on p. 18) as “the essence of knowing”? What does he say, on the next page, about what “knowing” means? Think back to our examples about the old shoes and the music. Do those examples suggest that there is just one way of “discovering reality” – of “grasping the being of things”? Or are there many? Perhaps as many as the various disciplines in a university? Perhaps more? * the essence of knowing lies, not in the effort of thought as such, but in the grasp of the being of things, in the discovery of reality. * Knowing means that the reality of existing things has been reached. * Perhaps we might say that a “university” is about searching for truth from a host of different directions, using a number of different means and methods.

14. On p. 19, Pieper talks about workers having “mask-like, stony features, ready to suffer pain, no matter what the reason.” (By the way, is that an accurate description of what you think the successful college student is supposed to be like? Is reading Pieper’s book changing your view at all?) What, according to Pieper, makes this notion of suffering radically different from the Christian understanding of suffering and self-sacrifice? What, for Thomas Aquinas, is “the goal and the norm of discipline”? * In the former case, one does not ask why (note the proviso: ready to suffer pain “no matter what the reason”). * In the Christian notion of self-sacrifice, one does not intend the painful as such, nor seeks exertion for the sake of exertion, nor the difficult simply because it is difficult; rather, what one seeks is a higher bliss, a healing, and the fullness of existence, and thereby the fullness of happiness: “The goal and the norm of discipline is happiness.”

15. Let’s reflect for a bit on that previous image of the “worker” with the “mask-like, stony features, ready to suffer pain, no matter what the reason.” What is distinctive about this person is, as Pieper points out, that he or she “does not ask why” – why am I doing all this work? You are about to enter upon the monumental task of getting a college degree. Do you know why you are setting forth to do all this work? If you don’t, does that strike you as odd?

Consider the following quotation by a man named J. J. Van der Leeuw:

“Most men are a mystery to themselves; many are even unaware of the existence of the mystery.... Yet, what could be stranger than that any human being should go through life and bear with all its vicissitudes, suffer the miseries common to all men, rejoice in the evanescent pleasures of life, bear its incessant burden and never ask why? If we were to see a man travelling under great discomfort and many hardships, and if, when we asked him whither he

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:29:05 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

was going, he were to answer that the question had never occurred to him, we should certainly consider such a man crazy. Yet that is exactly the case of most people in ordinary life. They go on the journey from birth to death, they toil along the weary road of life, and never ask why, or if they do, they ask the question in a superficial way, not really caring whether they find the answer or not.” In a best-selling book entitled The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, author Stephen J. Covey tells his readers that one of the first of the seven habits is to “start with the end in mind.” That is, identify your purpose. From years of experience, Covey has found that many people are so lost in their “busy-ness,” they never take the opportunity to stop and ask themselves why – why am I doing what I’m doing? From years of experience, I have found that many students who don’t understand why they are in school, end up sleep-walking through their classes – classes for which they are paying dearly, but which they barely care enough about to show up to. When such students start getting poor grades – as they invariably do – their parents and teacher will often exhort them to “bear up,” “get tough,” “show some discipline.” These are not bad pieces of advice. In fact, they are often very good pieces of advice. But think back: What does Thomas Aquinas say is “the goal and the norm of discipline”? The goal and norm of discipline is happiness. Okay, so now the question is, what makes you happy? From some years of experience asking this question of my students, I have found that some of them have almost no idea what would make them happy. And when they don’t, they have no reason to become disciplined. Do you have any idea what would make you happy? Have you ever thought of college as a means to reaching happiness? Have you ever thought of a job as a means to reaching happiness? Why not? Isn’t “happy” what all people desire to be? Is there anyone who says: “Nope; not me. I don’t want to be happy. My goal in life is to be utterly miserable”? Think for a moment, if you would, about the kinds of things that make you happy. It might be spending time with family and friends, or taking long bike-rides on back country roads, or restoring cars. One student of mine said that what made him happy was driving around with his friends. But it was also important that it be in a very particular car: specifically, in a blue 1968 Mustang convertible that he and his father had restored. To each his or her own. But now ask yourself this: Is there any connection between the things you are doing now and the things that truly make you happy? Is there any connection, for example, between the career you think you want and the things that actually make you happy? Have you even considered the question? If you haven’t considered such questions at all and have absolutely no idea why you are doing what you’re doing, and if what you’re doing isn’t motivated by love of something, what makes you think you’ll be able to discipline yourself to get through it? Okay, so let me ask you this: If you were a teacher, and you had students who were sleep-walking like zombies through their classes, wasting thousands of dollars of education, what sort of questions would you be asking them? Wouldn’t you ask them “Why are you doing this?” So – do you have an answer? (By the way, if you don’t, you’re still allowed to stay. But we hope you won’t be too annoyed if we keep asking you, year after year, pesky questions like: “Where are you going? What are your goals? What is the purpose of life? What kinds of things make one’s life happy and meaningful?” We are convinced that somewhere along the line – either now or later in life (or now and for the rest of your life) – you’ll have to ask these questions. Well, you’ll have to ask them, that is, if you ever want to be happy. If you don’t want to be happy – if a life of working with “mask-like, stony features, ready to suffer pain, no matter what the reason” sounds good to you – well then, hey, knock yourself out!)

16. On p. 20 of his text, Pieper sums up the two theses he has already argued against – namely (1) the view that human knowing is accomplished exclusively in the manner of discursive activity (that is to say, by filling your head with lots of useful facts), and (2) the view that the effort that goes into thought is the criterion of its truth. Besides these two, he say, “there is a third element involved as well, which appears to be even more crucial than the first two and seems to comprehend both of them within itself.” What is this third idea about work? * See bottom p. 20: “Work means ‘contribution to society.’ And ‘intellectual work’ is intellectual activity as social service, as contribution to the common utility.” * Top of p. 21: “Even the learned man and the student are workers; they too are drawn into the social system and its distribution of labor. * The intellectual worker is also bound to his function; he too is a functionary in the total world of work, he may be called a “specialist,” [and “expert”], but he is still a functionary. * Nobody is granted a “free zone” of intellectual activity, “free” meaning not being subordinated to a duty to fulfill some function.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:29:05 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

17. To get an idea what Pieper means when he says (on p. 21) that even the learned man and the student are workers; “they too are drawn into the social system and its distribution of labor” – and later on the same page: “Nobody is granted a ‘free zone’ of intellectual activity, ‘free’ meaning not being subordinated to a duty to fulfill some function” – consider the following. If you found out, after some experience of the subject, that you loved English literature, or art history, or the structure of the DNA molecule, so much so that you decided to major in English or Art or Biology, what would you say if someone asked you: “Yeah, but what are you going to do with a degree in that?” Would you: (A) make up some function that you might conceivably fulfill, (“I’ll be an English teacher”; “I’ll work in an art museum”; “I’ll be a doctor”), or (B) tell your questioner that there are a million different jobs in the world, and a liberal arts education is about discovering what you love and then doing it?

18. All of this brings us to Pieper’s discussion of the “liberal arts” that begins on the bottom of p. 21. How does Pieper describe the “liberal arts”? How are they distinguished from the “servile arts”? * Every art is called liberal which is order to knowing; those which are ordered to some utility to be attained through action are called servile arts. * Liberal arts, therefore, are ways of human action which have their justification in themselves; servile arts are ways of human action that have a purpose outside of themselves, a purpose, to be more exact, which consists in a useful effect that can be realized through praxis [action; doing]. * The “liberality” or “freedom” of the liberal arts consists in their not being disposable for purposes, that they do not need to be legitimated by a social function, by being “work.”

19. On p. 22, Pieper asks: “Is there still an area of human action, or human existence as such, that does not have its justification by being part of the machinery of a ‘five-year plan’?” It might help to remember that Pieper wrote this book in 1948, in the aftermath of World War II, and during the time when Stalin ruled the Soviet Union and, not insignificantly, the Eastern half of Germany. During these years, Stalin instituted a series of what were called “Five Year Plans” to bring about economic development. Every part of Soviet society was supposed to be coordinated in order to bring about the desired economic progress. Thus, Pieper’s question might be restated thus: “Is there an area of human action, or human existence as such, that does not have to be justified by being part of a program of economic development?” What do you think? So, for example, what about the appreciation of beauty? Does a class in art have to be justified by the claim that, someday, you might decide to invest in some paintings by Monet or Rembrandt? Does a class in evolutionary biology have to be justified by the possibility that, some day, you might be able to develop a revolutionary new type of virus that would eat common bathroom mold? Does the exploration of space have to be justified by the fact that science from the space program brought about Teflon cookware and Tang? (By the way, if you ever do develop a mold-eating virus, and it’s safe around humans, please let me know. I could really use it. But in the mean time ...) Take, for example, the painting we talked above by Van Gogh that people call “Peasant Shoes.” Let’s say that we knew this woman whose shoes were in the painting. And let’s say that we, along with the Catholic Church, wanted to affirm what Pope John Paul II used to call “the dignity of human labor.” How could we do it? We might do begin, of course, by trying to relieve some of the economic want and need of such workers. But has Van Gogh done a service to the peasant woman as well? Not merely because he has given some extraneous “beauty” to a drab life, but precisely by having respected her dignity by revealing it in his painting of the shoes? Can we “celebrate” because of such works of art, while still working to improve the of the poor? Or are we merely romanticizing the condition of the poor? (We might be.) Can such a work help us to respect the humanity of the worker? And if we come closer to her humanity, are we more or less likely to intervene wisely to try to help? What are your thoughts?

20. Now look on p. 25, where Pieper says the following: “It should go without saying that not everything that cannot exactly be categorized as ‘useful’ is useless. And thus it is not at all without significance for a people and the realization of a nation’s common good that room be allowed, and respect be granted, for what is not ‘useful’ work’ in the sense of immediate application.” Does it make sense to say that some things, done merely for their own sake or merely for the joy of doing it, may end up being “useful” economically or socially, but that being “useful” is not the point of doing them? So, for example, at one point in my life, I (Prof. Smith, silly professor of theology) worked as a research technician for Frito-Lay Research and Development. (Seriously.) I worked in the Department of Basic Research. Our job was simply to learn as much as possible about the chemistry of potatoes and corn and packaging materials and

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:29:05 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

anything else used by Frito-Lay. But since it was a corporation, and since top executives of corporations are usually worried about the “bottom line,” we were frequently being asked what “useful products” we had come up with recently in order to justify our existence. As much as we tried to point out that we weren’t “New Product Development” – they had their own big, beautiful lab across the way – but the “New Product Development” people made use of our “basic science” all the time, we just couldn’t seem to make the executives understand. What we knew, that some of them didn’t, is that “basic research” often paid big dividends in the long run in ways that no one could foresee. But for the “basic research” to be any good (or useful), it had to be pursued for its own sake and not because we could draw a clear line between this particular experiment in the lab and such and such an improvement in potato chips. So, once again: Does it make sense to you to say that some things, done merely for their own sake or merely for the joy of doing it, may end up being “useful” economically or socially, but that being “useful” is not the point of doing them?

21. Now take a look at p. 23 in Pieper’s book, where he says the following: “There is not much to dispute about whether, or to what extent, the natural sciences, medical sciences, jurisprudence [law], or economics should have a circumscribed place for themselves in the functioning unity of the modern social system” – in other words, they are generally considered “useful” in society. “It is of the nature of the individual sciences to be related to purposes that exist apart from themselves. But there is also a philosophical manner of treating these special sciences ....” Please understand: Pieper is not merely talking about philosophy courses in, say, the “philosophy of science” or the “philosophy of law” or the “philosophy of economics” – all potentially interesting courses. What he is talking about, rather, is a philosophical approach (what in English, we usually call a “theoretical” approach) to these disciplines. That is to say, we are talking about studying natural science, law, or economics not simply for what it can do for you in terms of a career, but simply because studying natural science, law, or economics are interesting in and of themselves. At the bottom of p. 24, then, Pieper says the following: “The functionary is trained. Training is distinguished by its orientation toward something partial, and specialized, in the human being, and toward some one section of the world.” Consider the following possibility. What if we invited Shell Oil over to campus to train our chemistry or business students for very particular jobs at Shell Oil? The obvious benefits of such a system would be that you would know that all your training would be “useful” in terms of getting you a job. Would there be drawbacks as well? So, for example, what if you decided to leave Shell Oil? What if you wanted to move into a different career? Would Shell Oil’s training to make you a Shell Oil functionary still serve you well in the long run? Would it serve you well as something other than merely a Shell Oil functionary? If not, what sort of education would be better? Is there, for example, a kind of education that would train you to be flexible – to be ready for any number of career paths? What would such an education look like? Would that education leave you more “free” than the one where you were trained to become a functionary at Shell Oil?

22. It is an interesting thing about a liberal arts education and personal freedom: many people throughout the centuries have noticed a connection between the two. But to take just one contemporary example, consider the following excerpts from an article entitled “Georgia Turns to the West for Ideas” (The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 54, no. 42 (June 27, 2008): A22-23): “Charles H. Fairbanks Jr. sits among a tight circle of a dozen students, each bent over a thick volume of Plato’s Republic. They are discussing, in English, the concept of the city-state guided by philosophers as a part of a “great books” course. Here at Ilia Chavchavadze State University, where Mr. Fairbanks teaches six months a year, a radical change is taking place. No longer do professors stand stiffly on podiums, lecturing in Russian. No longer do students study only highly specialized and technical subjects. Georgia, along with a number of other former Soviet countries, is rapidly reforming its higher-education system. Russian is being replaced by English in the classrooms an textbooks. Western-trained professors are flooding campuses with new methods of teaching. And liberal-arts courses are replacing vocational training.... ‘Our priority is to catch up with leading European and American universities,’ said Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili.....” Amazing, isn’t it? Students in Georgia yearning to be free from the dictates of the former Soviet system – that is to say, students who want to be free to do what they choose to do, rather than what the Russian government wants them to do – are turning to the liberal arts for an education that will prepare them for freedom. In the former Soviet Union, the education on which you are now embarking would be considered “radical” and “dangerous” – a threat to

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:29:05 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

the social order. That’s because it is. Real reading, real thinking, and real questioning have always been a threat to any totalitarian social order. Later in the same article, in a section entitled “A University Revolution,” you will find the following:

“The idea to switch to a liberal-arts model in higher education, rather than the narrowly focused specialty schools and institutes of the Soviet system, in which a student might learn only about mining, say, first appeared in Georgia in 2000.... All of Georgia’s universities have [now] instituted general-education requirements. Many highly specialized, outmoded courses have been trimmed from course catalogs.... At Chavchavadze, students who once took as many as 14 predetermined courses each week now study only five subjects at a time. And they are able to take courses outside their majors.”

Courses outside their majors! Dear God, the horror! Students might actually learn something outside their own discipline. And if they did, then what? They might start thinking about what they are being taught. And then, they might even start – I shudder even to say it – they might even start questioning. That can’t be allowed. That won’t prepare students to take their designated places within the modern economy. And finally, our article says this: “After decades of learning from old-fashioned Soviet or post-Soviet books, our students have become modern thinkers, able to read Machiavelli, Stephen Hawking, or Max Weber.” Yes, reading books – not pre-digested textbooks in which the selection and flow of information can be carefully controlled, but real books by great authors – can be dangerous. Why else do you suppose the former Soviet Union would have banned them? Perhaps our slogan at UST should be: “Come to the University of St. Thomas and read dangerous, banned books: Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Machiavelli, Thomas Jefferson, Dostoevsky, the Bible.” Now that you’ve read about these colleges and universities in Georgia, does it make any more sense to you what Pieper means when he deplores the kind of education that creates “functionaries”? I’ll ask my question again: Is there a kind of education that would train you to be flexible – that is, to be ready for any number of vocations or career paths? – ready, in fact, to live a full and free life within the modern world? What would such an education look like? Would that education leave you more “free” than the one in which you are trained to become a “functionary”? And here’s one more question: Is that the kind of education you want?

23. After making the statement that: “The functionary is trained. Training is distinguished by its orientation toward something partial, and specialized, in the human being, and toward some one section of the world.” Pieper continues with the following: “Education is concerned with the whole: whoever is educated knows how the world as a whole behaves. Education concerns the whole human being insofar as he is capax universi, “capable of the whole,” able to comprehend the sum total of existing things.” What do you suppose that means?

24. In Man’s Search for Meaning, a very powerful book that emerged from reflections on his time in the Concentration Camp at Auschwitz, Jewish psychiatrist Victor Frankl makes the following comment: “Any attempt at fighting the camp’s psychopathological influence on the prisoner .. had to aim at giving him inner strength by pointing out to him a future goal to which he could look forward.” “Nietzsche’s words, ‘He who has a why to love for can bear with almost any how,’ could be the guiding motto.... Whenever there was an opportunity for it, one had to give them a why – an aim – for their lives, in order to strengthen them to bear the terrible how of their existence. Woe to him who saw no more sense in his life, no aim, no purpose, and therefore no point in carrying on. He was soon lost.” And in light of all this, Frankl makes the following claim: “It is a peculiarity of man that he can only live by looking to the future – sub specie aeternitatis. And this is his salvation in the most difficult moments of his existence, although he sometimes has to force his mind to the task.” (By the way, that Latin phrase sub specie aeternitatis is difficult to translate into English, but it might best be rendered as “under the notion of eternity,” or better yet: “with a view toward one’s eternal destiny.”) What do you think? Do you suppose it would be crucial to have a sense of the meaning and purpose of life to stay alive in someplace like a Concentration Camp? Would it be less important outside of a Concentration Camp? Do you think Frankl is right in his supposition that human beings can really only survive if they can make sense of their present existence in terms of a larger vision of things – sub specie aeternitatis? If so, what kind of education would be best suited to prepare students to face such questions and such challenges? Does Pieper’s statement to the effect that “Education concerns the whole human being insofar as he is capax universi” make any more sense to you now? Do you want that sort of education? Or would you rather be trained as a functionary?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:29:05 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 2

25. Okay, I admit it; that last question was a bit unfair. No one wants to be labeled a “functionary.” But once you get past the rhetoric, the question still remains: What do you think is the purpose of an education? To train you for a specific entry-level job? To train you for a whole career? Or to train you for a whole life – a life that includes work as an important element, but which may include other important elements as well? If I were to ask you what the “other important elements” of life should be, would you be able to give me a list? Or has your education thus far been justified to you solely on the basis that it would help you “get a good job” and thus “getting a good job” is the only serious life-goal you bring to your consideration of education? Be honest. Does the example of the schools in the former Soviet republic of Georgia (see question 22 above) suggest any other possible goals?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%202.html[8/20/2008 3:29:05 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Josef Pieper, Leisure, the Basis of Culture, Chapter III

1. In the first paragraph of chapter III, Pieper claims that, from the perspective of one who is immersed in the world of “total work” – from the perspective of such a “worker” (whose life is gauged entirely by work) – leisure (and, we might add, an education in something like the liberal arts), “can only appear as something totally unforeseen, something completely alien, without rhyme or reason – as a synonym, in fact, for idleness and laziness.” Isn’t he right about that? Isn’t he right that “leisure” (and by extension, something like the liberal arts) is often taken to be a synonym for idleness and laziness? Think back to the example I gave before: What if you father called you and asked, “What are you doing?” and you told him: “I’m thinking,” or worse yet: “I’m listening-in to the being of things,” what do you suppose he would say? I for one would certainly be sympathetic if he said: “Stop being lazy and get to work!” But, let’s be honest, that’s because when you tell him, “I’m thinking,” he undoubtedly knows you well enough to know you’re probably just playing a video game and you really should “get to work.” Pieper says elsewhere: “The talk of ‘valuable working time’ is, after all, not just talk; something utterly real is involved. Why should anyone decide to sacrifice this previous article without sufficient reason?” What Pieper is searching for is precisely this “sufficient reason.” What distinguishes him from others is simply that he doesn’t believe that leisure can be defined solely as a “break from work.” That would be to define leisure – and life itself – in terms of work. On this view, we take a break from work, so that we can be refreshed, in order that we can get back to work. The question Pieper poses to us is this: “Is there any purpose in life other than work?” Or to put it another way: If we ask the question, “Is life for work, or work for life?” – and by that we mean, “Is human life supposed to serve the ends of work, that is, does it find its total fulfillment in work, or is work supposed to serve the ends of a full and complete human life? – and if we answer, no, work is merely part of or is meant to be a means to a full and complete human life, then aren’t we left with the obvious question: “Okay, then what is a full and complete human life?” Let me suggest to you that that is the primary question of a liberal arts education. Do you know what would constitute a full and complete human life? Do you understand, in other words, what you’re working for? If not, why not? Would it be worth spending some time reflecting on this question?

2. Leisure, in the sense Pieper is using the term, is definitely not idleness or laziness. That is a common mistake – one made by both students and parents. Students, when they hear the word “leisure,” think of things like “Spring Break,” “Saturday nights,” “party!” Parents, when they hear the word “leisure,” especially in association with their teenagers, will think of things like “video games,” “endless hours on the cell phone,” “my children staring blankly at the television screen.” What should be clear by now, however, is that “leisure” implies none of these things for Josef Pieper. For Pieper, “leisure” is bound up with “contemplation,” and “contemplation,” on this view, is not blankly staring into space waiting for something “spiritual” to happen, but is, as Pieper says on p. 31 of this chapter, “the disposition of receptive understanding, of contemplative beholding, and immersion – in the real.” It is, he says, “the necessary preparation for accepting reality; only the person who is still can hear, and whoever is not still, cannot hear.” Does that sound like Spring Break or video games to you? I hope not. Parents, for their part, are sometimes worried that talking about “leisure” and studying the “liberal arts” will make their children shiftless, lazy bohemians who hang out in dark coffee shops talking incessantly about Nietzsche and Sartre, staring dully at the latest avant garde art, and sharing their existential angst, never getting a job. In high schools, I think they call that being “emo.” If we meant any of those things by “leisure” and the “liberal arts,” your parents would be right to be worried, and they would be well-justified in sending you to another school to get a real education. But “leisure,” in the sense Pieper is talking about, isn’t sitting around staring vacantly at the video game console or gyrating to loud music with 200 other adolescents in a cheap beer-induced fog at a beach-side bar. Nor are the “liberal arts” about becoming “artsy” and “sensitive” and hanging out with a bunch of intellectuals who know all sorts of odd things about Russian literature and the tribal cultures of Bali, Indonesia, but can’t even hold a job. Not even file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203.html[8/20/2008 3:28:58 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3

close. Leisure is the necessary prerequisite for a liberal arts education, not merely because one needs “time off” from work in order to go to school – although that is true as well – but because the kind of education we are talking about is one in which the students must dispose themselves internally to seek knowledge and understanding of the world. It is about discovering what you love, so that you can spend a lifetime doing what you love. Indeed, to the objection that leisure and the liberal arts encourage idleness and laziness, Pieper says this: “Now the code of life of the High Middle Ages [when Thomas Aquinas lived] said something entirely opposite to this” [that is, opposite to the notion that leisure bred laziness]. Thinkers in the Middle Ages believed that it was precisely the “inability to be at leisure” that went together with idleness; that “the restlessness of work-for-work’s-sake arose from nothing other than idleness.” Now here is an interesting thought: Perhaps the restless activity of the contemporary American worker is merely the flip side of the restless activity of the contemporary “party animal.” For neither is true leisure possible. That’s the problem. At many top-level universities in America, the students have this motto: “We work hard, and we party hard.” Sadly, neither seems to give them much satisfaction. They work to keep themselves busy, and they drink (“party”) in order to forget how empty and hollow their lives of total work, total ambition, and total success are. Let me suggest that, oftentimes, what Americans call “partying” is not “leisure,” it is merely “distraction.” On this sort of “distraction,” the American Catholic writer and Trappist monk Thomas Merton, in a book entitled The Ascent to Truth, writes the following:

“The earthly desires men cherish are shadows. There is no true happiness in fulfilling them. Why, then, do we continue to pursue joys without substance? Because the pursuit itself has become our only substitute for joy. Unable to rest in anything we achieve, we determine to forget our discontent in a ceaseless quest for new satisfactions. In this pursuit, desire itself becomes our chief satisfaction....”

“It is not enough to say that the man who is attached to this world has bound himself to it, once and for all, by a wrong choice. No: he spins a whole net of falsities around his spirit by the repeated consecration of his whole self to values that do not exist. He exhausts himself in the pursuit of mirages that ever fade and are renewed as fast as they have faded, drawing him further and further into the wilderness where he must die of thirst....”

“A life immersed in matter and spirit ... is a life not merely of deluded thoughts and aspirations, but above all a life of ceaseless and sterile activity. What is more, in such a life the measure of illusion is the very intensity of the activity itself. The less you have, the more you do. The final delusion is movement, change, and variety for their own sakes alone.”

(A quick question: What would the opposite of “a life of ceaseless and sterile activity” be? Would it be the kind of “leisure” that Pieper is talking about? Just a thought.)

Merton continues: “Man was made for the highest activity, which is, in fact, his rest. That activity, which is contemplation, is immanent and it transcends the level of sense and of discourse. Man’s guilty sense of his incapacity for this one deep activity which is the reason for his very existence, is precisely what drives him to seek oblivion in exterior motion and desire. Incapable of the divine activity, which alone can satisfy his soul, fallen man flings himself upon exterior things, not so much for their own sake as for the sake of the agitation which keeps his spirit pleasant numb. He has but to remain busy with trifles; his pre-occupation will serve as a dope. It will not deaden all the pain of thinking; but it will at least do something to blur his sense of who he is and of his utter insufficiency.... ‘Distraction [says Pascal] is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries and yet it is, itself, the greatest of our miseries.’

“Why? Because it ‘diverts’ us, turns us aside from the one thing that can help us to begin our ascent to truth. That one thing is the sense of our own emptiness, our poverty, our limitations, and of the inability of created things to satisfy our profound need for reality and for truth.”

Do you think Merton is right about our tendency to seek out “distractions,” whether in work or shopping or partying, that keep us “numb,” that serve as a kind of dope, that blur our sense of who we are and why we are here? I would like you to keep this passage by Merton in the back of your mind as you read the chapter by Pieper. Please also consider the following. How does the passage above from Merton’s Ascent to Truth help to illuminate the following passage from Pieper’s Leisure, the Basis of Culture: “Now the code of life of the High Middle Ages

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203.html[8/20/2008 3:28:58 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3

said something entirely opposite to this” [that is, opposite to the notion that leisure bred laziness]. Thinkers in the Middle Ages believed that it was precisely the “inability to be at leisure” that went together with idleness; that “the restlessness of work-for-work’s-sake arose from nothing other than idleness.” So, for example, on this view, what do the restless party-animal and the restless worker have in common? * the inability to enjoy true leisure is what causes us to restlessly seek out work or partying

3. But let’s return to the topic of laziness, or what in the Middle Ages was known by the Latin word acedia. Wishing to distinguish “leisure” from “laziness,” Pieper points out (on p. 28) that, during the Middle Ages, laziness or acedia was not thought to be caused by leisure. What, on the contrary, was thought to be the ultimate cause of laziness? [Hint: It has something to do with that project of “digging more deeply to the very roots of a philosophical and theological understanding of the human person” that Pieper was talking about at the end of chapter 1.] * that the human being had given up on the very responsibility that comes with his dignity: that he does not want to be what God wants him to be, and that means that he does not want to be what he really , and in the ultimate sense is. * Acedia (sloth, idleness) is the “despair of weakness”: despairingly not wanting to be oneself. * “behind all his energetic activity, he is not at one with himself.”

4. According to Pieper, then, what would be the opposite of idleness and laziness? Is it the acquisitive effort or industriousness, as practiced in the economic life of civil society? Is laziness, on this view, the result of a lack of economic ambition and enterprise? If not, what is it instead? * No: “The opposite of acedia is not the industrious spirit of the daily effort to make a living, but rather the cheerful affirmation by man of his own existence, of the world as a whole, and of God – of Love....” * “There can only be leisure, when man is at one with himself, when he is in accord with his own being.

5. Think about these two statements from your text: (A) “The opposite of acedia is not the industrious spirit of the daily effort to make a living, but rather the cheerful affirmation by man of his own existence, of the world as a whole, and of God – of Love....” And (B) “There can only be leisure, when man is at one with himself, when he is in accord with his own being.” Do you understand now why we can say that, for Pieper, “leisure” and the “liberal arts” will definitely not result in sitting around in bars or coffee shops bemoaning life, wallowing in rejection and existential angst? Explain why not. Do you also understand now why, for Pieper, the answer to the problem of idleness and boredom is not necessarily to be found in the world of “total work”? Why not? * Because both acedia (sloth, idleness, laziness) and the ceaseless activity of the “workaholic” spring from the same source: the inability to be at rest with oneself, with the world as a whole, and thus to enjoy true “leisure.”

6. Why, according to Pieper, should we not confuse true “leisure” merely with things like “breaks,” “time off,” “weekend,” “vacation,” and so on? * These are external. Leisure, says Pieper, is “a condition of the soul.”

7. Why, according to Pieper, is “leisure” (in his sense) a necessary precondition for coming to understand the truth? Why, then, by extension, is “leisure” (in Pieper’s sense) a necessary precondition for a liberal arts education? * Leisure is “an inner absence of preoccupation, a calm, an ability to let things go, to be quiet.” * “Leisure is a form of that stillness that is the necessary preparation for accepting reality; only the person who is still can hear, and whoever is not still, cannot hear. Such stillness as this is not mere soundlessness or a dead muteness; it means, rather, that the soul’s power, as real, of responding to the real – a co-respondence, eternally established in nature – has not yet descended into words. Leisure is the disposition of receptive understanding, of contemplative beholding, and immersion – in the real.” * If a liberal arts education is about coming to know the truth about the world and about oneself, then this sort of receptive attitude (namely, leisure) would be a necessary prerequisite.

8. On p. 32, Pieper asks this: “The surge of new life that flows out to us when we give ourselves to the contemplation of a blossoming rose, a sleeping child, or of a divine mystery – is this not like the surge of life that comes from deep, dreamless sleep?” Is it? Have you ever had an experience of what he is talking about? Actually, you might ask yourself two questions. First, have you ever experienced a deep, dreamless sleep from which you awoke and the world seemed suddenly new and fresh and full of life? Similarly, have you experienced the

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203.html[8/20/2008 3:28:58 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3

“surge of new life that flows out to us when we give ourselves to the contemplation of a blossoming rose, a sleeping child, or a divine mystery”? Have you, for example, ever been sitting somewhere, perhaps thinking about something entirely different, and all of sudden, in a flash, some great realization came to you? As though there were a dawning of sorts – a light coming on or the sun coming up – and things that had been muddy and confused before all of sudden seemed clear? Now ask yourself this: Did that moment – that flash of insight – always happen in a school classroom? (Let’s be honest; did it ever happen in a school classroom?) If such events don’t always happen in the classroom, then perhaps you will need to be aware that “education” is something that will often happen outside of class – perhaps during conversations with others or in a quiet moment reading under a tree somewhere. Is there ever enough quiet and stillness in your life – enough “leisure” – to allow such moments of insight to come? Or is “education” for you only something that happens inside of a classroom – indeed, something to be scrupulously avoided like the plague outside of the classroom? Let me suggest that if education isn’t happening outside of the classroom, then it probably isn’t happening at all. What probably is happening isn’t “education,” but merely the training of a functionary. (I could be wrong, of course. Is it worth taking the time to think about whether I am or not?

9. What, according to Pieper, is the relationship between “leisure” and celebration? How does this view of leisure help to counteract the modern notion that only things that are hard or unpleasant are worthwhile? * Leisure is the condition of considering things in a celebrating sprit. The inner joyfulness of the person who is celebrating belongs to the very core of what we mean by leisure.

10. “Leisure is only possible,” says Pieper, “on the assumption that man is not only in harmony with himself,” but also what else? In a similar vein, what, according to Pieper, does leisure “live on”? * but also that he is in agreement with the world and its meaning. * Leisure lives on affirmation.

11. Why, for Pieper, is leisure “not the same as the absence of activity; it is not the same thing as quiet, or even as an inner quiet”? What is it like instead? * It is rather like the stillness in the conversation of lovers, which is fed by their oneness.

12. On p. 33, Pieper gives his reader a prime Scriptural example of leisure – of someone resting “from all the works that He had made” – namely, God’s rest on the Seventh Day of creation. How, according to Pieper, is man’s rest to be like God’s? * just like God, who on the seventh day, saw all that He had made, and saw that it was “good, very good,” so the leisure of man (should) include within itself a celebratory, approving, lingering gaze of the inner eye on the reality of creation.”

13. If, as Pieper says, “the leisure of man includes within itself a celebratory, approving, lingering gaze of the inner eye on the reality of creation,” what then, according to Pieper, is the highest form of celebration – of affirmation of the basic goodness of the world? Thus, what is it that, according to Pieper, “is the origin of leisure”? * The highest form of affirmation is the festival.... The holding of a festival means: an affirmation of the basic meaning of the world, and an agreement with it.... * The festival is the origin of leisure.

14. Let’s reflect a bit more on this idea of the festival being the “origin of leisure.” Your first reaction at this point might be to ask, “But I thought leisure wasn’t about partying?” Well, yes and no. Think about it: Have you ever noticed a difference between a “celebration” (that is, an event that can truthfully be described as “festive”) and “partying”? It is, admittedly, getting more and more difficult to find a real celebration these days and not merely the pale imitation – people getting drunk because they’re so bored they hardly know what else to do with themselves – but sometime in your life you may have experienced it, especially if you’ve ever had the chance to attend a Greek or Latino wedding feast, for example, or an African American worship service, where people really know how to rejoice. Consider this: Is there a difference between “pleasure” and “joy”? Have there been parties you’ve attended where you experienced a number of various pleasures (you needn’t list them), but which didn’t leave you necessarily feeling “joyful”? Have there been occasions, on the other hand, when you’ve experienced a deep sense of joy being

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203.html[8/20/2008 3:28:58 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3

with other people, but which didn’t necessarily involve bodily pleasure – indeed, which might even have involved a lot of hard work? If so, then you’ll understand that “pleasure” and “joy” aren’t necessarily linked – although they aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive either. There are parties that leave you feeling wonderful, and there are parties that leave you feeling, well, sick to your stomach – or worse. What is the difference between them? Not necessarily the quantity of alcohol or the quality of the snacks. What is it? Some people know how to celebrate, and some people only know how to get drunk. The first, “celebration,” may or may not include alcohol, but the second, “getting drunk” definitely does. Indeed, at certain parties, when the alcohol runs out, so do the guests. No one stays around to, what – talk? About what – life? What would be the point? People who go to such parties usually do so precisely because they don’t want to talk – or even think – about their lives. They go to escape – to forget. But when there is celebration, how is it different? Does it, for example, have anything to do with affirming the basic goodness of life and of the world – in spite of all the obvious limitations and problems?

15. Josef Pieper has, in fact, written another wonderful book that takes up many of the same themes you are encountering in Leisure, the Basis of Culture. The other book, which I recommend highly, is entitled In Tune with the World: A Theory of Festivity. In that book, he asks: “On what grounds does a specific event become the occasion for festival and celebration?” His answer: “No single specific even can become the occasion for festive celebrations unless – unless what? Here is where we must be able to name the reason underlying all others, the ‘reason why’ events such as birth, marriage, homecoming are felt as the receiving of something beloved, without which there can be neither joy nor festivity.... Underlying all festive joy kindled by a specific circumstance there has to be an absolutely universal affirmation extending to the world as a whole, to the reality of things and the existence of man himself. Naturally, this approval need not be a product of conscious reflection; it need not be formulated at all. Nevertheless, it remains the sole foundation for festivity, no matter what happens to be [the event] celebrated in concreto [in the concrete situation].” Think about that claim for a moment. It may seem a bit too radical, but isn’t there some truth to it? Is it possible to “rejoice” at the birth of a child or the marriage of a good friend or a soldier’s safe return from war if, in the end, life is empty and meaningless anyway. Think about it. Think about the person who says: “Sure, it’s a cute, happy baby now, but eventually it will grow up and be wretched and miserable just like everyone else in this world of misery and woe.” If the world is empty and meaningless, then it’s empty and meaningless, and all attempts at joviality are just pathetic attempts to get us to avoid the grim truth of things. How can there be celebration for a person who holds such a view of the world? Josef Pieper believes, in fact (returning to In Tune with the World) that “man cannot have the experience of receiving what is loved, unless the world and existence as a whole represent something good and therefore beloved to him.... Whereas, on the other hand, whoever refuses assent to reality as a whole, no matter how well off [financially] he may be, is by that fact incapacitated for either joy or festivity.” And finally: “Festivity lives on affirmation.... a festival becomes true festivity only when man affirms the goodness of his existence by offering the response of joy.” Okay, so now here’s the question: Let’s suppose for a moment that you bought into the idea that things like “leisure” and “festivity” depend on affirmation, that is, on affirming the goodness of the world and one’s own existence. Do you suppose that education similarly depends upon affirmation? Consider this: There are a lot of students who have worked their whole lives to “get into college,” who have in addition paid a lot of money to study at the institution in which they are currently enrolled, and yet who are miserable as can be. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because they just don’t find what they are studying meaningful? Could it be because they haven’t found what they love? When you love something, is it a burden to study it? But for people who don’t find anything in life interesting or meaningful or worth being loved, then it’s hard to imagine how studying – or working or going to parties or how life itself, for that matter – wouldn’t be an intolerable burden. This isn’t just a problem with colleges and universities, of course. There are plenty of people who spent their whole lives working to become doctors or lawyers, who, now that they are doctors or lawyers, are completely miserable. Just as there are plenty of people who thought that winning the lottery would make them happy, but it didn’t. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because they too haven’t found what they love? And without that, all the rest is just emptiness. Are you resolved to “grit your teeth and bear it” through four boring years of sitting through classes so that you can (you hope) get some kind of a job (you know not what), make some money, and then – then what? Have you even thought that far? Or do you think college is about discovering what you love? What do you love? Look, no one at the University of St. Thomas wants to make you miserable. None of us wants bored students. file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203.html[8/20/2008 3:28:58 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3

But there isn’t much anyone can do for people who don’t find anything in the world interesting or meaningful. And rarely do people find something interesting or meaningful if they don’t consider it worthy of being loved. Leisure, festivity, celebration, and most of all, the liberal arts – all of them live on affirmation. If, on the other hand, you’re filled with questions – questions about everything: about the world, the meaning of life, the nature of the human person, how financial markets work, how people from different cultures understand the world differently, how the Constitution is supposed to protect human rights, how laws should be made, how atoms combine to form molecules, how molecules combine to form tissues and organs, how tissues and organs keep us alive – then you’re definitely in the right place. What are you interested in? What do you find meaningful? What do you love? (Don’t just sit there and say to yourself, “Hmm, I wonder whether he’ll put that on the quiz? Don’t turn a useful question into an abstract and useless question. Make a list of things you find interesting, of things you find meaningful, of things you love.)

16. What does Pieper mean when he says that “the break from work is there for the sake of work”? If “leisure” shouldn’t be understood as merely a “break from work,” how, on the contrary, should “leisure” be understood? What is leisure for? * A break from work is there for the sake of work: We take a break from work so that we can be refreshed for more work. * “Now leisure is not there for the sake of work, no matter how much new strength the one who resumes working may gain from it; leisure in our sense is not justified by providing bodily renewal or even mental refreshment to lend new vigor to further work – although it does indeed bring such things! * “... nobody who wants leisure merely for the sake of ‘refreshment’ will experience its authentic fruit....” * “Leisure is not justified in making the functionary as ‘trouble-free’ in operation as possible, with minimum ‘downtime,’ but rather in keeping the functionary human .. and this means that the human being does not disappear into the parceled-out world of his limited work-a-day function, but instead remains capable of taking the world as a whole, and thereby to realize himself as a being who is oriented toward the whole of existence.

17. At the bottom of p. 35 and top of p. 36, Pieper claims that the ability to be “at leisure” is “one of the basic powers of the human soul”: “Like the gift of contemplative self-immersion in Being, and the ability to uplift one’s spirits in festivity, the power to be at leisure is the power to step beyond the working world and win contact with those superhuman, life-giving forces that can send us, renewed and alive again, into the busy world of work.” Compare this statement with the quotation from Plato that makes up the first epigraph of the book? (As a reminder, it reads: “But the gods, taking pity on human beings – gave them regularly recurring divine festivals, as a means of refreshment from their fatigue; they gave them the Muses, and Apollo, and Dionysius as the leaders of the Muses, to the end that, after refreshing themselves in the company of the gods, they might return to an upright posture.”

18. Let’s continue our reflection on this notion of human beings “refreshing themselves in the company of the gods,” so that “they might return to an upright posture.” What do you suppose is the result – physically – of a lifetime slaving behind a plough – or, as more often in our case, in front of a computer screen? Have you ever seen the cartoon of “man’s evolution” that shows mankind evolving from a hunched over ape to full, upright posture, back to someone hunched over in front of a computer? (See below.)

What do you suppose is being suggested by this cartoon? Is it merely the physical deformation that is a problem? What do you suppose are the psychological and spiritual consequences of living one’s life burdened in this way? What does Pieper mean when he speaks of humans “refreshing themselves in the company of the gods,” so that “they might return to an upright posture”? Is it merely physical? Or do you suppose he has something more profound in mind? Explain.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203.html[8/20/2008 3:28:58 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 3

19. What is interesting about Pieper’s work is that he, following a long set of Greek and Christian traditions, believes that the way to restore our “upright posture” – the way, in other words, to restore our full humanity – is by “refreshing ourselves in the company of the gods.” So, for example, on p. 36, he says that, “In leisure – not only there, but certainly there, if anywhere – the truly human is rescued and preserved precisely because the area of the ‘just human’ is left behind over and over again.... As Aristotle said of it: ‘man cannot live this way insofar as he is man, but only insofar as something divine dwells in him.’” This is odd, is it not? On this view, to become fully human, we need to go beyond the merely human – to the divine. What do you suppose that means? Do you think this “refreshing ourselves” in the company of God (or the gods) is possible? Or should we just keep our back to the plough? If not, what else is there? Anything?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%203.html[8/20/2008 3:28:58 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 4

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Josef Pieper, Leisure, the Basis of Culture, Chapter IV

1. At the beginning of Chapter IV, Pieper asks the following: “Will it ever be possible to keep, or reclaim, some room for leisure from the forces of the total world of work? And this would mean not merely a little portion of rest on Sunday [and who really does that anymore anyway], but rather a whole ‘preserve’ of true, unconfined humanity: a space of freedom, of true learning, of attunement to the world-as-a-whole? In other words, will it be possible to keep the human being from becoming a complete functionary, or ‘worker’? What would have to be done beforehand in order for this to succeed?” Okay, so: Is it possible? And what would have to be done beforehand in order for this to succeed? Are people just naturally going to resist becoming mere functionaries and preserve a space of freedom, of true humanity? Or do they need help? Will they need training? education? discipline? a miracle?

2. The remainder of this chapter involves an “excursus” (that is, a “digression”) on certain key terms that were subject to much discussion in Germany after the Second World War – terms such as: proletariat, proletarian, and de- proletarianization. Now those are words you can use to impress people at cocktail parties. But first you’ll have to know what they mean. Some of you may know that Karl Marx set up a famous contrast between two groups he labeled the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie were those who owned the sources of capital and production, whereas the proletariat were the ones who worked in the fields and factories of the owners. Many of you will also probably know that Marx believed the age of the bourgeoisie was coming to an end and that it would be replaced by the age of the proletariat. The word proletarian is merely the adjectival form of the noun proletariat. So, for example, a Marxist might describe a Rolls-Royce as a disgustingly bourgeois automobile, whereas he might describe a Volkswagen Beatle as fairly proletarian – a vehicle more appropriate to the income and needs of the working classes (the proletariat). So what is de-proletarianization? Please remember that Pieper was writing in 1948 to a German society that had suffered through the horrors of the Nazi regime, but was also struggling against the ideology of the Soviet Union to its East. Proletarianization is a concept in Marxism and Marxist sociology. For Marx, the process of proletarianization was the other side of capital accumulation. The growth of capital meant the growth of the working class. Marx theorized that, with the development of capitalism, private property and the sources of capital would be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands and an increasing mass of the population would be reduced to dependence on wage labor for their income, that is, they would be forced to sell their labor to employers for a wage or salary because they lacked assets or other sources of income. Marx believed the proletariat would eventually grow so large (that is to say, so much of the population would be “proletarianized”) that it would overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish itself as the “last class in history.” To de-proletarianize, then, would be to attempt through various means to reverse this process, by making sure that fewer and fewer people were becoming “wage slaves” to capitalist owners. In general, it is an attempt culturally to minimize the class distinctions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat or “working class.” De- proletarianization was thought to be an important project given the intellectual and cultural threat that was being posed by the Soviet Union and its communist satellites in Eastern Europe after World War II. If Marx was right, and proletarianization was the road to the communist revolution, then for those who wished to resist that revolution, de- proletarianization seemed to be the order of the day – at least to certain parties in Germany at the time. One way in which it was thought that the division between the “workers” and the bourgeoisie could be overcome was by more closely identifying some of the traditional activities of the bourgeoisie (such as intellectual study) with “work” and “the workers.” Do you get the picture? All of these college and university professors could defend themselves against the charge of being hopelessly bourgeois (they didn’t work in the fields; they didn’t produce anything by the sweat of their brow; they just sat around all day like a bunch of lazy aristocrats) by claiming that, “No, we’re workers too! We’re intellectual workers. We work in the fields of intellectual labor” (whatever that would file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%204.html[8/20/2008 3:28:55 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 4

mean). Bottom line: Because of his cultural and historical context, Pieper feels the need to defend his notion of “leisure” and “the liberal arts” from the charge that it is too “aristocratic” – too bourgeois. It is important to note, however, that although Pieper is in this chapter defending “the liberal arts” against the communist demand that everything be associated with “work” and “the workers,” the same arguments could be used against the laissez-faire capitalist demand that everything be associated with “work” and “what makes profit.” On this score, from the point of view of a Catholic social critic such as Pieper, the communist and the capitalist are united by having made the same mistake: namely, seeing and judging all of human life in utilitarian, economic terms. Now let’s turn to Pieper’s text for some questions. Does Pieper believe that the class-opposition in society between “workers” and “owners” can be overcome at the level of “working”? That is to say, can this opposition ultimately be overcome simply by altering one’s notion of the “worker”? Or by turning everyone into a “worker” – including students in colleges and universities? (Another way of saying the same thing would be to ask: Does Pieper believe in the “proletarianizing” of education?) * No. I suppose the point would be: it doesn’t help workers, it just screws up education. And as we will see on the next few pages, what would really help workers is precisely making available to them a “liberal arts” education.

3. In the middle of p. 41, Pieper asks: “What is it to be proletarian really?” What is his answer? So, for example is being proletarian the same as being poor? Why or why not? If not, what is it to be proletarian? * On p. 42, top: Being proletarian is being bound to the working-process. * Note: This is why being proletarian is not the same as being poor. Beggars in the Middle Ages were poor, but were not “wage-slaves” tied to certain work. Whereas, even rich executives in the modern world, who are loaded up with personal debt, are entirely dependent upon their wages and their employers. Thus, says Pieper, the “negative aspect of the proletariat, the aspect we need to remove from it, does not consist in the fact that the condition is limited to a certain social class.” Rather, the problem is deeper: it is seeing human beings primarily or solely as “functionaries” within the system, and not as full and complete human persons who are capax universi [capable of grasping the whole] – that is to say, potentially infinite – and who thus transcend any finite bureaucratic, economic, or political system.

4. There are two parts of Pieper’s definition of what it is to be proletarian: that is, being bound to the working- process. Let’s take the second part first. What does Pieper mean by “the working-process”? * In this definition, “working-process” does not refer in general to the entire complex of human action that never comes to a stop; proletarianness is not simply the orientation of man to activity as such. * “Work” is meant as useful activity, which means that by definition, work does not have its meaning in itself, but is directed toward something socially advantageous, a bonum utile, the realization of practical values and needs. * Note: Pieper distinguishes the “common use” from the much broader term “common good.” The “common good” includes even non-material goods, like the common appreciation of beauty or the sharing of a common tradition. “Common use” means just those things that people might find “useful” in a utilitarian sense: roads, airports, bridges, post-offices, factories, office buildings, malls – and schools maybe, but only if they teach their students useful things, like electrical wiring, plumbing, accounting, engineering, and the like. “Appreciating beautiful works of art” would probably not qualify as “useful.”

5. Next, how and why are people “bound” to the “working-process”? Pieper lists three ways. Please list them. * To be bound to the working process is to be bound to the whole process of usefulness, and moreover, to be bound in such a way that the whole life of the working human being is consumed. * CAUSES OF BINDING: This “binding” can have various causes. (i) “The cause may be lack of ownership” (thus the worker must sell his labor). (ii) “But such binding can also be caused by the demands of the total-working state. The proletarian is one who, whether or not he owns property, is constantly on the move ‘because of the practical necessities of the absolutely rational production of goods.’” So, for example, modern “managers” and “executives” are often as “bound” and “enslaved” by the demands of work as their workers because they have production quotas to meet, meetings to go to, and stock-holders to satisfy. (iii) A third way: “the binding to the working-process can have its roots in the inner poverty of the person: the proletarian is one whose life is fully satisfied by the working-process itself because this space has been shrunken from within, and because meaningful action that is not work is no longer possible or even imaginable.”

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%204.html[8/20/2008 3:28:55 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 4

6. How are the last two of the three mutually reinforcing? * MUTUALLY REINFORCING: The latter two are mutually encouraging: the total-working state needs the spiritually impoverished functionary, while such a person is inclined to see and embrace an ideal of a fulfilled life in the total “use” made of his “services.” * That is to say, the world of total work (whether communist or capitalist) needs people to see themselves primarily as “workers” whose lives are fulfilled by fulfilling their “functions” in the state.

7. On p. 43, Pieper asks: “And in regard to this internal binding to the work-process, a further question may be posed: whether or not [it] is a symptom that characterizes all levels of society...; indeed, the question is whether we are not all proletarians ... all ripe and ready to fall into line as ready functionaries for the collective working-state”? What do you think? Is he right? That is to say, is he right about most Americans? How about you?

8. I’ll be honest: When I ask my students the previous question, almost all of them reply something like this: “Yes, it’s true of most Americans, but it’s not true of me. I am not, nor am I going to become, a mere functionary.” Most of them say that – except, of course, for the honest ones, who are self-aware enough to realize that they’re not really all that different from everyone else. But okay, let’s suppose for a moment that you really don’t want to become a mere “functionary” for the collective. How do you intend to accomplish this genuinely unique feat? Not work? Not likely. Sit in bohemian coffee shops, drink dark coffee (free-trade, of course), and complain about the bullsh*t of society? That’s the same as not working – unless of course you work in the coffee shop, in which case you really will have become a functionary. Or will you work all day in a demanding job and then go to a bar, have a few too many beers, and complain about the bullsh*t of society? That’s a common-enough practice. But if none of those options seems particularly appealing to you, then what will you do? Think about it: If your entire education is precisely to become a “functionary” – to serve the ends of “work” – then what do you suppose will dominate your life and your activities? Do you have any idea what you would do with your life outside of work? Do you have any idea what you would do with yourself if money weren’t an issue at all? Consider again what Pieper had said above: “the binding to the working-process can have its roots in the inner poverty of the person: the proletarian is one whose life is fully satisfied by the working-process itself because this space has been shrunken from within, and because meaningful action that is not work is no longer possible or even imaginable.” Is he right? Does that happen, do you suppose? Will it happen to you? What will you fill yourself with instead so that the “space” will not be “shrunken from within”? (Perhaps that’s what a liberal arts education is for. Just a thought.)

9. Indeed, on this question of the relationship between “de-proletarianization” and the “liberal arts,” Pieper suggests (on p. 44) that: “Proletarianism [contrary to what Marx thought] would consequently be equivalent to the narrowing of existence and activity to the realm of the artes serviles [the “servile arts”] – whether this narrowness be caused through lack of ownership, compulsion of the state, or spiritual poverty. ‘De-proletarianization,’ then, would consequently be the widening of one’s existence beyond the realm of ‘merely useful,’ ‘servile’ work ....” Perhaps a “liberal arts” education is precisely one which is meant to “widen one’s existence beyond the realm of merely useful, servile work. If so, what do you suppose such an education be like? Do you want an education like that? (Note, by the way, that such an education needn’t avoid preparing you for the world of work; it’s just that it should prepare you for a whole life within which work plays its proper role as a means to an end, and not as the be-all-and-end-all of life.

10. On p. 45, Pieper suggests that the distinction between the “servile” and the “liberal” arts can be related to the distinction between an “honorarium” and a “wage.” “The liberal arts,” he says, “are ‘honored’; the servile arts are ‘paid in wages.’” What, according to Pieper, is the difference between an “honorarium” and a “wage”? (To clarify that last question, consider this: How much would be “enough” to pay Beethoven for his nine symphonies?) Why does Pieper believe that, even with regard to the “servile arts,” insofar as they are the acts of a free human person, we should probably think more often in terms of an “honorarium” rather than a “wage”? (To clarify that question, consider this: How much would be “enough” to pay a mother for loving and caring for her child?) Consider also this: The “honorarium” is understood to be something that contributes to the life-support of the artist – not something that is, at it were, “equivalent” to the money – whereas a wage (in the strict sense) means payment for an isolated piece of work, without regard for the life-support of the working person. But what if we, with Pope Pius XII in Quadragesimo Anno held that, even with regard to wages: “In the first place, the worker is entitled to a wage that should suffice for the life-support of himself and his family.” How do we “honor” workers? (A) By paying them a living wage. And (B) By doing much more than that – that is, by treating them as human persons file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%204.html[8/20/2008 3:28:55 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 4

having a unique and infinite dignity. How we accomplish the first is a question for economics. How we accomplish the second is a question for a liberal arts education. * The concept of the honorarium implies a certain lack of equivalence between achievement and reward, that the service itself cannot really be rewarded. So, for example, the poet reads her poetry, and we give her some money. But we don’t think the money is somehow equal to the poetry – as though we were paying her by the word. * “Wages,” on the other hand, mean payment for work as an article or commodity: the service can be “compensated” through the wage, there is a certain “equivalency.” Professors spend so many hours in the classroom, so they get a certain amount of money. But, and this goes to the final question in the list, we should realize that teaching, as a human action (or accounting or banking or digging trenches) – that is, as the freely-chosen action of a free human being – is always something to be “honored” because there is really no equivalence between the “service” being rendered by the person and the money being paid.

11. In the last paragraphs of chapter 4, Pieper begins his transition to the topic of chapter 5, which deals with the relationship between “leisure” and “worship.” So, for example, on p. 47, Pieper talks about how, in the total-work state (that, by the way, would be a pretty good description of the United States) – but in a total-work state, there is a tendency to define all non-useful activity as “undesirable” and to absorb even leisure time into the service of useful work. Thus we find in the United States that “weekends” and “holidays” are justified not because they are in accord with the dignity of the human person, whose life should not be taken up entirely by work, but because giving “workers” these “breaks” helps them to be more “productive” in the long run. (Which is, by the way, a totally unproven thesis. Which is why there are workers in the Third World who haven’t had a day off in over six years – literally. Why give them a break if (A) there’s no evidence that vacations make them more productive, and (B) giving them no breaks makes me, the owner, more money? Why give them a break, that is, unless (C) human dignity demands it – whether or not it makes them more “productive” or not?). In the context of this discussion, Pieper asks the following question: “can we not see what it means for there to be an institution in the world that prohibits useful actions, or the “servile arts” [that is to say, “work”] on certain days” [as, for example, on the “Sabbath”]? Explain what he means. Similarly, he quotes the socialist author P. J. Proudhon who says concerning the social significance of the celebration of the Sabbath: “The servants regain their human dignity for a day, and put themselves on a level with their masters.” Explain what he means. Is having a “Sabbbath-day” (that is, a day free from “servile work”) a good idea, in your view? Why or why not?

12. Pieper sums up the discussion of this chapter on pp. 48 and 49 of his text. There he says this: “We can now sum up what has been said in this excursus: when ‘being proletarian’ means nothing other than being bound to the work-process [which is how Pieper defined it], then the real key to overcoming the condition – that is to say, a true de- proletarianization – would consist in...” – in what? Why, in the same vein, does Pieper consider “political measures which expand life economically” insufficient to achieve true freedom for the proletariat? Is it significant, for example, that 3/4 of the people in America who have vacation-days from work, don’t take them all? * True de-proletarianization would consist in making available for the working person a meaningful kind of activity that is not work – in other words, by opening up an area of true leisure. * Political measures which expand life economically are good, but not enough, because “the decisive thing would still be missing: it is not enough merely to create the external conditions for leisure; the main question is with what activity one’s leisure is fulfilled. Or as Pieper says elsewhere (quoting Nietzsche): “The trick is not to arrange a festival, but to find people who can enjoy it.”

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%204.html[8/20/2008 3:28:55 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

Questions to Guide Your Reading

Josef Pieper, Leisure, the Basis of Culture, Chapter V

1. At the beginning of the previous chapter (chapter 4) Pieper asked: “Will it ever be possible to keep, or reclaim, some room for leisure from the forces of the total world of work? And this would mean not merely a little portion of rest on Sunday, but rather a whole ‘preserve’ of true, unconfined humanity: a space of freedom, of true learning, of attunement to the world-as-a-whole? In other words, will it be possible to keep the human being from becoming a complete functionary, or ‘worker’? What would have to be done beforehand in order for this to succeed?” What followed in chapter 4, however, was not exactly an answer to the question, but rather an “excursus” on whether talking about “leisure” and the “liberal arts” would end up being far too bourgeois – and thus not sufficiently attuned to the needs of the proletariat – for the Germany of his day? Pieper’s answer, as we have seen, was no. Quite the contrary, he argued that the problem with being “proletarian” was not merely the external condition of the work, but the fact that no matter what one’s job or income, the worker is “bound to the work-process.” The real key to overcoming this problem, argued Pieper, is not to turn everything (including the intellectual life) into “work” (remember that the intellectuals were defending themselves against the charge of being too bourgeois by insisting: “Hey, we’re workers too, just like you guys out in the factories!”), rather the real key to the problem is to make available for the working person “a meaningful kind of activity that is not work” (and not directed to work as its end) – “in other words, by opening up an area of true leisure.” Fine so far, but the obvious next question would be: “Okay, so what is this meaningful activity that is not work and that opens up an area of true leisure for people? And indeed, that is the question Pieper will spend his final chapter attempting to answer. But he is not beginning from scratch. Pieper had outlined a series of very important points in chapter 3 before he went on his little “excursus” about what it really means to be proletarian in chapter 4, so it would be worthwhile for us to review some of those points briefly before we begin our survey of chapter 5. Recall that in chapter 3, Pieper had argued that “leisure” is not the same as “idleness” or “laziness.” “Idleness,” argued Pieper, is caused ultimately because a person “is not at one with himself”; it consists in someone “despairingly not wanting to be oneself.” “Sadness has seized him,” declares Pieper, because he does not realize the divine Goodness that lives within him. There can only be true leisure, then, “when man is at one with himself,” and “when he is in accord with his own being.” Leisure, thus, on this view, is primarily a condition of the soul, not a break from work. Leisure is only possible, then, “on the assumption that man is not only in harmony with himself ... but also that he is in agreement with the world and its meaning.” If, as Pieper says, “the leisure of man includes within itself a celebratory, approving, lingering gaze of the inner eye on the reality of creation,” what then, according to Pieper, is the highest form of celebration – of affirmation of the basic goodness of the world? Thus, what is it that, according to Pieper, “is the origin of leisure”? “The highest form of affirmation,” he replies, is the festival.” “The holding of a festival means: an affirmation of the basic meaning of the world, and an agreement with it.” Thus: “The festival is the origin of leisure.” That brings us to the top of p. 50 and the beginning of chapter 5, where Pieper says the following (as if picking up right where he left off): “But if celebration and festival is the heart of leisure, then leisure would derive its innermost possibility and justification from the very source whence festival and celebration derive theirs.” That brings me to my question: What is the source, according to Pieper, from whence leisure, festival, and celebration derive their innermost possibility and justification? * But if celebration and festival is the heart of leisure, then leisure would derive its innermost possibility and justification from the very source whence festival and celebration derive theirs. And this is worship.

2. Okay, so let’s put some of the strands of the argument together. At the beginning of chapter 4, Pieper asked: “Will it ever be possible to keep, or reclaim, some room for leisure from the forces of the total world of work? And this would mean not merely a little portion of rest on Sunday, but rather a whole ‘preserve’ of true, unconfined

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:28:56 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

humanity: a space of freedom, of true learning, of attunement to the world-as-a-whole? In other words, will it be possible to keep the human being from becoming a complete functionary, or ‘worker’? What would have to be done beforehand in order for this to succeed?” His answer to that question, ultimately (by the end of chapter 4), was that we would need to make available for the working person “a meaningful kind of activity that is not work” (and not directed to work as its end) – “in other words, by opening up an area of true leisure.” Okay, so what is this meaningful activity that is not work and that opens up an area of true leisure for people? What is Pieper’s answer here at the beginning of chapter 5? [Hint: Look at your answer for Question #1.] Another way of putting the same question would be to reverse it, and ask this: On Pieper’s view, why is the Sabbath important? Yes, it provides a break from work; that is an external good. But why else? What is the internal good that Pieper sees resulting from this day of worship? * Again, the meaningful activity that is not work and that opens up an area of true leisure for people – precisely because it is the ultimate source of festival and celebration, and because it is the ultimate affirmation of existence – is worship.

3. There is one more theme we need to take note of here at the beginning of chapter 5, which is a continuation of something begun in chapter 4. In answer to that question, “Will it ever be possible to keep, or reclaim, some room for leisure from the forces of the total world of work?” Pieper suggests (starting at the bottom of p. 37), that “certain forms of resistance [to the world of total work] have proved inadequate.” These “inadequate” forms of resistance include the notion of “art for art’s sake,” the idea of our duty to “tradition,” and finally, the concept of “humanism.” It’s not that Pieper is against any of these things – quite the contrary! – it’s merely that he doesn’t consider any one of them sufficient to protect human beings from becoming “functionaries” in the world of total work. Perhaps the most interesting of these three is the concept of “humanism.” Let me briefly explain why. The term “humanism” and “humanist” arose during the Renaissance, and it was the self-designation of certain thinkers beginning with Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374), and later thinkers such as the Italian humanist Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494), the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), as well as his English friend (and Roman Catholic saint) Thomas More (1478-1535), who wanted to revive the study of the Latin and Greek classics from the period before the Middle Ages. One of the things these thinkers disliked about the Middle Ages was their lack of appreciation (or what they thought was a lack of appreciation) for beauty – especially the beauty of the human form. These Renaissance “humanists” understood themselves to be engaged in an intellectual project of focusing renewed attention on the dignity and importance of the “human” as well as the things God. Indeed, for them, man had an infinite dignity precisely because he was in the image of God. A favorite text, for example, was Psalm 8:4-6: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little less than angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour; and thou hast set him over the works of thy hands: thou hast put all things under his feet.” And yet, as the Renaissance gave way to the Enlightenment, and certain influential thinkers became more and more skeptical about what could be known about God – if anything – and about what value knowledge of God would have for human beings, “humanism” became more secular. A nice example can be found in a famous text from Alexander Pope’s 1734 essay called, appropriately enough, “Essay on Man.” At the beginning of Epistle II, Pope writes:

“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan the proper study of Mankind is Man.”

By the end of the Nineteenth Century, the movement toward what is now called “secular humanism,” or more dramatically “atheist humanism,” was well under way. For many secular humanists, the study of God was not only thought to be irrelevant to the study of man, it was increasingly considered downright harmful. To glorify God, it was thought, was to diminish man and human accomplishments. Indeed, for thinkers such a Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx, the idea of God was a dangerous delusion that kept human beings from focusing on what was necessary for health and well-being in this life. There have been a number of responses to this challenge in the Twentieth Century, but perhaps the most interesting has been the intellectual movement that is often identified by the term “Christian humanism.” For “atheist humanists,” the term “Christian humanist” seems something like a contradiction in terms: to talk about “Christianity” is to talk about things like “God” and “heaven” and therefore not to talk about things like “man” and human welfare in this world. In reply, Christian humanists have attempted to show that such a view is based on a false dichotomy between “God” and “man.” If, as the Book of Genesis suggests, man is made in the “image of God,” then by paying attention to God’s revelation of Himself to us, we can learn not only more about God, but also more about what it is to

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:28:56 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

be authentically human. We might put it this way: “God has revealed Himself to man, so that man might be revealed to himself.” An even better statement of this Christian ideal can be found in the Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (often called by its Latin title, Gaudium et Spes), which was published in December of 1965. Pope John Paul II was at the Council and participated extensively in the drafting of this text. Indeed, there are two passages from Gaudium et Spes that Pope John Paul II quoted in every one of his encyclicals. The first is from Gaudium et Spes, 22. It is very beautiful, so allow me to quote it to you in full:

22. The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come, namely Christ the Lord. Christ ... by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear.... He Who is "the image of the invisible God," is Himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled, by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too. For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin. As an innocent lamb He merited for us life by the free shedding of His own blood. In Him God reconciled us to Himself and among ourselves; from bondage to the devil and sin He delivered us, so that each one of us can say with the Apostle: The Son of God "loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal. 2:20). By suffering for us He not only provided us with an example for our imitation, He blazed a trail, and if we follow it, life and death are made holy and take on a new meaning. The Christian man, conformed to the likeness of that Son Who is the firstborn of many brothers, received "the first-fruits of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:23) by which he becomes capable of discharging the new law of love. Through this Spirit, who is "the pledge of our inheritance" (Eph. 1:14), the whole man is renewed from within, even to the achievement of "the redemption of the body" (Rom. 8:23): "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the death dwells in you, then he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also bring to life your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom. 8:11). Pressing upon the Christian to be sure, are the need and the duty to battle against evil through manifold tribulations and even to suffer death. But, linked with the paschal mystery and patterned on the dying Christ, he will hasten forward to resurrection in the strength which comes from hope. All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. Such is the mystery of man, and it is a great one, as seen by believers in the light of Christian revelation. Through Christ and in Christ, the riddles of sorrow and death grow meaningful. Apart from His Gospel, they overwhelm us. Christ has risen, destroying death by His death; He has lavished life upon us so that, as sons in the Son, we can cry out in the Spirit: Abba, Father.

The second text is from Gaudium et Spes, 24:

24. God, Who has fatherly concern for everyone, has willed that all men should constitute one family and treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood. For having been created in the image of God, Who "from one man has created the whole human race and made them live all over the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26), all men are called to one and the same goal, namely God Himself. For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: "If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.... Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law" (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20). To men growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth proves to be of paramount importance. Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:28:56 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man ... cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.

With such texts, the Church wishes to make clear that Christian revelation is not meant to detract from concern for human dignity and human well-being, but to reinforce it. Josef Pieper was certainly an important figure in this movement dedicated to articulating for the modern world a true “Christian humanism.” It is in this context that we must read his question on p. 38, for example, about whether “Humanism” (and by this he means “humanism” alone, apart from God) is adequate to protect the dignity and freedom of, for example, the human worker? He notes, for example, that in communist East Germany (which no longer exists), the term “Humanism” was being used to describe “economic materialism” – that is to say, Marxism. But was “Humanism” in this sense sufficient to protect the working person from being subsumed into the “total world of work”? History suggests the answer is no. Marxism was founded on the hope that it would protect the “worker,” but it ended up treating human beings as nothing more than workers. And from the point-of-view of Christian humanism, treating a human being as nothing more than a worker is not to appreciate his or her infinite dignity as a creature who is “made in the image of God.” Back now – finally! – to chapter 5, where Pieper starts out by asking the following: “Let us now pose the question again: is recourse to the ‘human’ really enough to preserve and firmly ground the reality of leisure?” What is his answer? (That was a long way to go for a fairly simple answer, I know, but sometimes the journey is as important as the destination.) * His answer: “I intend to show that such recourse to mere Humanism is simply not enough.”

4. This is a theme that goes back to the very first page of Pieper’s book: namely, that the “truly human” requires our participation in the divine. Remember the epigraph to the whole book? “But the gods, taking pity on human beings -- a race born to labor -- game them regularly recurring divine festivals as a means of refreshment from their fatigue; they gave them the Muses, and Apollo and Dionysus as the leaders of the Muses, to the end that, after refreshing themselves in the company of the gods, they might return to an upright posture.” And again later, at the end of chapter 3, on p. 36, he says: “In leisure – not only there, but certainly there, if anywhere – the truly human is rescued and preserved precisely because the area of the “just human” is left behind over and over again.... this is the paradox that reigns over the attainment of leisure, which is at once a human and super-human condition. As Aristotle said of it: ‘man cannot live this way insofar as he is man, but only insofar as something divine dwells in him.’” (Actually, Aristotle said this about the life of contemplation, but his point is similar.) Indeed, let’s remember what the Trappist monk Thomas Merton said about contemplation and our need for the divine:

“Man was made for the highest activity,” says Merton, which is, in fact, his rest. That activity, which is contemplation, is immanent and it transcends the level of sense and of discourse. Man’s guilty sense of his incapacity for this one deep activity which is the reason for his very existence, is precisely what drives him to seek oblivion in exterior motion and desire. Incapable of the divine activity, which alone can satisfy his soul, fallen man flings himself upon exterior things, not so much for their own sake as for the sake of the agitation which keeps his spirit pleasantly numb. He has but to remain busy with trifles; his pre-occupation will serve as a dope. It will not deaden all the pain of thinking; but it will at least do something to blur his sense of who he is and of his utter insufficiency.... ‘Distraction [says Pascal] is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries and yet it is, itself, the greatest of our miseries.’ “Why? Because it ‘diverts’ us, turns us aside from the one thing that can help us to begin our ascent to truth. That one thing is the sense of our own emptiness, our poverty, our limitations, and of the inability of created things to satisfy our profound need for reality and for truth.”

Odd, is it not, that on this view, by attaching ourselves to the divine, we become more, not less, human. And this is true not only for Christians, but for pagans of the ancient world like Plato and Aristotle.

So what is my question? Plato, Thomas Merton, Pope John Paul II, and Josef Pieper all share the notion that we are made more human by our participation in the divine. Please be able to describe the position of each one of these thinkers.

5. Okay, so let’s review the argument again. At the beginning of chapter 4, Pieper asked: “Will it ever be

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:28:56 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

possible to keep, or reclaim, some room for leisure from the forces of the total world of work? And this would mean not merely a little portion of rest on Sunday, but rather a whole ‘preserve’ of true, unconfined humanity: a space of freedom, of true learning, of attunement to the world-as-a-whole? Mere “humanism,” thinks Pieper, will not be adequate to the task. Human beings, it seems, are a “race born to labor” – or at least many people have treated human beings as if they were. So where must we turn instead? What does Pieper say? Again, his answer is: worship. But be careful! When you hear the word “worship,” you may be importing all sorts of ideas that Pieper does not have in mind. Whenever you read an author, you are allowed (indeed, encouraged) to disagree, but you should do the author the justice you would wish done for you: namely, to try to understand the person’s words in the sense he or she is using them, and not to import all your own prejudices into the text. When you hear the word “worship,” you may be thinking, “Oh, so I’m supposed to spend a boring hour at church on Sunday.” Or worse yet: “Worship: that’s something I do so that God won’t hit me with a bolt of lightning, and if I’m really conscientious, maybe he’ll reward me with a BMW or a new stereo or something.” But think about it: From everything you’ve read in Pieper’s book so far about “leisure” and “affirmation” and “celebration,” does it really seem likely that Pieper has that idea in mind when he says “worship”? Not really. So what does he mean? And why, according to Pieper, is there no real holiday “without the gods”? (Remember, please, that the word “holiday” is simply a shortened form of the word “holy day.” Our question might be restated thus: Why is a holiday not really a holiday unless it retains its character as a “holy day” – that is, something dedicated to worship?) * To experience and live out a harmony with the world, in a manner quite different from that of everyday life – this, we have said, is the meaning of “festival.” But no more intensive harmony with the world can be thought of than that of “Praise of God,” the worship of the Creator of this world. * Even this statement, says Pieper, “is often received with a mixture of discomfort and various other feelings.” * Why does “worship” in Pieper’s sense require the gods? Because “artificial holidays” made up by nation-states are totally lacking in the essential quality: true and ultimate harmony with the world.

6. Let’s think about Pieper’s argument for a moment. Has he got a point? Has the celebration of Christmas, for example, gotten better the less it has to do with Christ? Or has the celebration gotten worse? If you come from a tradition that doesn’t celebrate Christmas, you might ask yourself the same thing about Ramadan or Yom Kippur: Is the holiday better when it is less religious and less about God, or does it lose something somehow? (This is one of those questions you won’t be tested on. You’re just supposed to think about it. For those of you who consider “thinking” a waste of time, you have my apologies.)

7. On p. 52, Pieper says the following: “Worship is to time as the temple is to space.” Please explain what he means. * “Temple” has a certain meaning [related to the word “to cut”]: a definite physical space has been ‘cut off’ by enclosure or fencing from the rest of the land, whose surface was divided up for farming or other uses. These sectioned-off spaces were handed over to the possession of the gods and were not inhabited or planted but were removed from all practical use. * Just so, through religious festival, and for the sake of religious festival, or ‘cult’ ... time, a definite period, was separated off, and this period of time, no otherwise than the ground-surfaces of the temple and places of sacrifice, would not be used, and would likewise be kept from use

8. Why, on Pieper’s view, can there be no real “festival” in the world of total work? In other words, what happens to unused time and/or unused space in the total world of work? * Now there can be no unused area of ground nor an unused time; nor can there be a space for worship or festival: for this is the principle of rational utility [that is, the principle that everything must have some rational “use”] * Within the world of total work, the “festival” is either a “break from work” (and thus only there for the sake of work), or a more intensive celebration of work (as in “Labor Day”) * In the world of total work, wherever something is left over, this excess will be subjected again to the principle of rational utility. [I.e., how can we “use” it? How can we make money off of it? How can it help the economy? Or how can it support the governing regime?]

9. In the middle of p. 53, Pieper makes the following blunt comment about life in the world of total work (I’ve re- translated it a bit): “There will naturally be ‘games’ – like the Roman circenses” [i.e., the Roman “circus,” where, for

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:28:56 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

example, the gladiators fought or chariot races were held or Christians fed to the lions] – but, asks Pieper: “who could dignify these amusements-for-the-masses with a true ‘festival’”? What do you think? In the modern world, we have football games and basketball games and baseball games. Indeed, we have a lot of “amusements for the masses.” You’ve probably been to a few. So what do you think? Would you describe these events as “festive”? Would you describe them as “joyful celebrations of human life and human existence”? (What if your team loses the game, for example? Is the event still “festive”?)

10. Note the great “old Russian saying” that Pieper recounts in the middle of p. 53: “Work does not make you rich; it only makes you bent over.” Compare this saying with the epigraph at the beginning of the book. How, on Pieper’s view, does “the worker,” the one who becomes “bent over” because of his or her work, return to an upright posture? * “after refreshing themselves in the company of the gods, they might return to an upright posture.”

11. At the bottom of p. 53, Pieper makes the comment that “sacrifice is at the center of the festival.” Now at first glance, you might think he is talking about the sacrifice of bulls and goats on an altar, or even the sacrifice of the Eucharist at mass. But he isn’t. Not primarily, at least. What kind of “sacrifice,” is Pieper talking about, and why is it “the very opposite of usefulness”? * A sacrifice is a voluntary gift that is offered; in this case, the voluntary gift that must be offered by us is time – time that might otherwise be spent making more money, planting more crops, fixing more cars, working overtime, etc. * Worship demands a “space of uncountable giving, untouched by the ever-turning wheel of buying and selling, an overflow released from all purpose, and an authentic wealth: it is festival time.

12. Let’s think about this comment for a moment – that worship involves “a space of uncountable giving, untouched by the ever-turning wheel of buying and selling, an overflow released from all purpose, and an authentic wealth: it is festival time!” Have you ever had that experience? If so, when? Describe the circumstances.

13. According to Pieper, “When separated from worship,” what happens to “work” and “leisure”? * When separated from worship, leisure becomes toilsome, and work becomes inhuman.

14. Why, when separated from worship, does “leisure become toilsome”? * Without the “joyful affirmation of existence” that characterizes true leisure, leisure becomes “mere time-killing” and “boredom gains ground.” Then “Despair” rears its ugly head. [Despair, you will remember, comes from “despairingly not wanting to be oneself” – an idea drawn from the work of Soren Kierkegaard’s Sickness Unto Death.]

15. Charles Baudelaire, whom Pieper mentions on p. 54, was a famous Nineteenth Century poet, critic, and translator, who was well-known among the Bohemian artists who lived in Paris at the time. At one point, shortly before attempting suicide, he wrote in his diary that “the fatigue of falling asleep and the fatigue of waking are unbearable.” Fortunately, his suicide attempt failed, but his expressions of ennui [general boredom] and the weariness of life have became legendary among sophisticated Bohemians and artistes ever since. Pieper offers one quotation from Baudelaire’s Journals: “One must work, if not from inclination, at least from despair, since, as I have fully proved, to work is less wearisome than to amuse oneself.” What do you suppose he meant? And what would Thomas Merton or Blaise Pascal say in response to poor Baudelaire, the bored, sophisticated artiste? * Merton: “Man was made for the highest activity,” says Merton, which is, in fact, his rest. That activity, which is contemplation, is immanent and it transcends the level of sense and of discourse. Man’s guilty sense of his incapacity for this one deep activity which is the reason for his very existence, is precisely what drives him to seek oblivion in exterior motion and desire. Incapable of the divine activity, which alone can satisfy his soul, fallen man flings himself upon exterior things, not so much for their own sake as for the sake of the agitation which keeps his spirit pleasantly numb. He has but to remain busy with trifles; his pre-occupation will serve as a dope. It will not deaden all the pain of thinking; but it will at least do something to blur his sense of who he is and of his utter insufficiency.... ‘Distraction [says Pascal] is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries and yet it is, itself, the greatest of our miseries.’

16. On p. 57, Pieper says that, “Culture lives on ‘worship,’” and by that the means that “culture” depends on

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:28:56 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

“leisure,” and “leisure” depends upon having forced open this space (within the world which is otherwise the world of total work) for activities that “go beyond mere means-to-an-end-considerations.” Now you might not consider yourself especially “religious,” and you may not really have any belief in “God” or “heaven,” but consider this: Doesn’t everybody have something in their lives that, at least for him or her, goes beyond a mere means-to-an-end, profit-on-investment calculus? So, for example, let’s say that you and your father are really big Houston Astros fans, and for some reason (you’ll have to really use your imagination here), Houston makes it to the World Series, and your father gives you a ticket to Game 7 of the Series! Now let’s say that someone offers you 1500 dollars for that ticket. Do you take it? I mean, it’s cold hard cash! And your father doesn’t really need you there anyway, does he? Does Game 7 of the World Series with your father somehow transcend a mere means-to-an-end, profit-on-investment calculus? What if someone offered you a million dollars to have sex with your wife? (Yes, there was a movie with Robert Redford and Demi Moore based on this idea.) Would you (and your wife) take it? Does the sexual union between a husband and wife somehow transcend the mere “means-to-an-end” calculus? Indeed, is there anything in your life that somehow transcends that mere “means-to-an-end” calculus? Friends? Family? Someone you love? Or would you sell out your own grandmother if the price were high enough?

17. Do you understand now what Pieper means by saying that “worship” involves sacrifice? And that “culture” lives on “worship”? Can there be “culture” – art, beauty, theater, baseball, a gathering of friends – if there is nothing “sacred,” nothing beyond (or “above”) the mere “means-to-an-end” rational utility of the world of total work and the endless profit motive? Does it make any more sense to you now why a university interested in the “liberal arts” – let’s say, for the sake of argument, a Catholic university, but it could be a Moslem university or Jewish university or a Hindu university – might wish to put “worship” (at least in Pieper’s sense) at the center of its educational project? (Indeed, why it might even want to put a big ‘ol chapel as a living, visible symbol at the center of its campus?) Does it make any more sense to you now why such a university – if it is interested in the kind of fundamental questions about the meaning and purpose of human life we have been discussing – might feel that “worship” (at least in Pieper’s sense) is not at odds with its dedication to research and rational inquiry, but rather could be complementary to it? Does it make any more sense to you now, in other words, why Pieper says that “culture” lives on “worship,” and “leisure” (properly understood) is “the basis of culture”?

18. On p. 57, having laid out in these five chapters his view of the problem, Pieper asks (with a mere three pages to go in the book): “But now, what are we to do?” In what follows, he admits, first of all, that “the intention of this essay was not to give advice or provide guidelines for action but only to encourage reflection.” (Great. Now he tells us!) “This essay, then, was not designed for an immediately practical purpose.” But of course it wasn’t. Indeed, hasn’t the whole book been about not needing absolutely everything to be “useful”? Well, at least “useful” in a certain sense. It’s not meant to be “useful” in the sense that a “how-to” book is meant to be “useful.” (We’ll be reading a “How To” book in a couple of weeks – How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren – so we’re not entirely opposed to “How To” books here at UST.) But is Pieper’s Leisure, the Basis of Culture “useful” in some other way? Did you find it “useful” (interesting? worthwhile? important? educational?) to ponder any of these major questions? Might it be the case, as I mentioned before, that the journey is sometimes as important as the destination? Isn’t correctly thinking through the problem sometimes the best first step to getting the right answer? We all know people who know all the answers. We call them “teenagers.” But perhaps it’s just as important to ask the right questions. Perhaps there are more important issues to think about than “where do I buy this sort of perfume at the mall?” or “how do I get over this sort of obstacle in Grant Theft Auto IV”? So, here’s your question: Are there more important issues to think about than “where do I buy this sort of perfume at the mall” or “how do I get over this sort of obstacle in Grant Theft Auto IV”? Are there important issues to think about that transcend the mere “means-to-an-end” utility of the world of total work and the endless profit motive? If so, like what? Make a list.

19. Although Pieper has no immediate useful guidance for the reader about what to do now, he does seem to hold out one hope about how “leisure” might be restored in our modern culture. What is it? * (58) “The celebration of God’s praises cannot be realized unless it takes place for its own sake. [Although leisure may be “healthy,” the paradox is that it is impossible to be truly at leisure merely for the sake of health.] But this [namely, the celebration of God’s praises] – the most noble form of harmony with the world as a whole – is the deepest source of leisure. * Worship is “given,” – that is, by God or the gods – or it does not exist at all. You cannot just “make it up.”

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:28:56 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

20. If you were to ask Josef Pieper what lies at the very heart of a liberal arts education, what do you suppose he would say? If he answered, “worship,” would you understand what he meant? Or would you suppose he meant merely that you had better go to church – in the sense of a purely external observance – or you’ll be a “bad person” and thus a “bad student”? Let me assure you, he doesn’t mean that. What more is involved, then, in Pieper’s understanding of “worship”? Why is some form of “worship” important (on his view) to a liberal arts education?

21. At the very end of chapter 1, Pieper suggested that, “An altered conception of the human being as such, and a new interpretation of the meaning of human existence as such, looms behind the new claims being made for “work” and the “worker.” Here he is probably thinking about the view of man as homo economicus: “economic man.” On this view, man is defined primarily in terms of what he adds to the economic system of production. (This view of man, by the way, is the one that underlies both the Marxist view of man, as well as the laissez-fair capitalist view of man.) Thus, getting at the problem of “work” and “leisure,” says Pieper, necessarily will involve “digging more deeply to the very roots of a philosophical and theological understanding of the human person.” Now that you have reached the end of his text, how would you describe Pieper’s understanding of the human person? * the human person seeks to understand – to understand the truth about both himself and the world; * the human person is questioning: we question the meaning of our existence; * the human person is capax universi; * the human person becomes more fully human “in company with the gods”; * the meaning of being human is not fully realized in “work” or in “production” or in the economy: the meaning of being human is related to celebrating and affirming one’s existence in worship.

Final Note: Okay, so you’ve finally finished the questions on Josef Pieper’s Leisure, the Basis of Culture – for now. We’ll be coming back to the book, so don’t throw out your notes.

But right about now (if not before), you might be thinking: “What was that? We, like, read and analyzed that book with a fine tooth comb. And all those questions! What was his deal? Is he obsessed with that book? Or does he just enjoy tormenting students?” Answer to those final two questions: No, and no. Am I obsessive? Yes. But I’m obsessive about your education. And this assignment was the first step in a process of showing you that reading is a skill – a skill you will need to develop like any other: like basketball, tennis, painting, or sculpture. Many of you probably think you have that skill already. And to a certain extent, you probably do But we will be challenging you to develop your reading skills to an even deeper and more profound degree. And you have to be ready for that. The first thing you have to learn is that “reading” involves more than just having your eyes pass across a page. Reading involves comprehension; it involves remembering key points; and above all, it involves thinking and analysis. And reading well involves bringing to bear while you read insights from your own experience, as well as perspectives drawn from all the different disciplines. You may have noticed that in my questions on even this short text, I mentioned art, philosophy, theology, science, history, sociology, politics, and psychology. All of those disciplines can help illuminate your reading of a text – any text. Please understand that there was nothing in those “Questions to Guide Your Reading” that you shouldn’t be able to do for yourself eventually. Those questions do no more than indicate the kind of analysis you should be able to do by and for yourself – when you need to. But by the same token, these are not skills that can be mastered in a week. Indeed, they are skills that often take a lifetime to develop fully. But the journey of a million miles begins with the first step. And you have taken that first step. But above all, don’t panic. First of all, we’re here to teach you. If you already knew everything you needed to know, there would be no reason to spend a lot of money to go to college. It may sound strange, but undoubtedly the most important skills we will be trying to teach you during college will be the skills of reading, writing, and thinking clearly. We have found from long experience that nothing will serve you better in your future life and career than having and developing these skills. The second reason not to panic is that not every book or article you are assigned will require this same level of analysis (thank God). There are many things that you can “scan” -- if you do it intelligently. This sort of reading is sometimes called “Inspectional Reading.” But all of these are issues that we will be covering as we read and discuss our next book, entitled (appropriately enough): How to Read a Book. It will impart many important lessons about how

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:28:56 PM] Pieper Questions to Guide CHAPTER 5

to read a book intelligently. But we hope you’ve already learned one important lesson: namely that the reading we will be requiring at the college level is definitely going to be more demanding and challenging than any of the reading you’ve ever had to do in the past. Don’t panic, but be ready. If the education at UST weren’t demanding and challenging, it wouldn’t be worth paying the money, now would it? You’re paying us to help you achieve excellence. Please don’t hand over all that money and then ask us not to do our jobs. No one says, out loud: “Oh, oh, please, please, I want to be mediocre!” But people can say it with their actions. Don’t say it. You deserve the best education we can possibly give. And we’ll do everything we can to deliver it – even if it means students saying about us: “What is their deal? Are they, like, obsessed or what?”

Yes, we are. Get used to it. It’s called education.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/Pieper%20Questions%20to%20Guide%20CHAPTER%205.html[8/20/2008 3:28:56 PM] The Quarrel

odyssey ship The University of St. Thomas

Odyssey Program

What We Would Like You to Consider While Viewing the Movie The Quarrel

In this movie, you will observe two men having – guess what – a quarrel. Indeed, their quarrel takes up almost the whole of the movie. (Sorry, no explosions or car crashes.) During their quarrel, the two men touch upon some fairly profound topics: death, the meaning of life, the existence of God, the nature of evil. Things of that sort. Sometimes they make good arguments; sometimes they do not. As interesting as their speeches are about death, life, evil, and God – all of which I hope you will pay attention to, many of which will become relevant in the coming weeks – what I am really interested in having you reflect on as you watch this film is the nature of the discussion. Here are two men who are deeply engaged in arguing about some pretty serious issues. They are both Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, and their experiences during that tragedy have caused them to come to some radically different conclusions about the world, about life, and about God. Given their experiences, these are not questions about which they have a merely “abstract” interest. These are pressing questions about which both men feel passionately. It is easy for us, the viewers, to say: “Well, why can’t they just agree to disagree?” Or: “Why can’t they just admit they might both be right?” But for these men, whose whole lives were caught up in the horror of the Holocaust, having lost friends and family and futures, it is simply not open to them – precisely because of their friendship and love for one another – to look at one other and say (as teenagers are accustomed to doing): “Whatever.” “No big deal. Whatever.” There is simply too much at stake. What I would like you to notice in this movie, first of all, is that two people can disagree about some pretty profound issues and still (it seems) remain friends. Indeed, you might ask yourself whether they could have this discussion if they weren’t friends? But secondly, I would like you to pay attention in particular to when the discussion seems to be going well and when it seems to be going badly. There are times during their quarrel when each man storms off, and the discussion, as well as their friendship, nearly comes to an end. Why? What happened? What was said or done to bring the conversation to a crisis point? And what happens that preserves the conversation and allows it to move forward? When are the men at their best? And when do they say or do things that – perhaps unintentionally – alienate the other person? Each Friday for the nearly the whole of this semester, you will be engaging in a series of discussions with fifteen other people on issues not unlike the ones these two men must struggle with. You may not have suffered through the Holocaust (thank God), but each of you has his or her own story which will in some ways be similar to others, and yet in other ways utterly unique. The question is: How can you carry on a meaningful conversation with these people? By “meaningful,” I mean a conversation where people with very different views come together and actually learn something from each other. It is easy enough to come together with other people who have views very different from your own, listen to them with a modicum of civility, say nothing (or mutter “Whatever!”), and then go away in disgust. People do it all the time. Indeed, in our culture, we generally tend to have two modes of discussion. Either people quietly listen to one another rambling on aimlessly, agreeing never to disagree with anything anybody else says, no matter how outlandish or ridiculous, or they shout at one other, calling each other names (“liberal whimp,” “conservative pig,” “fascist idiot,” “yellow-bellied dog”), ready to have the other person cast out of their presence, if not out of the school, for deigning to say something so absurd as ... (fill in the blank). Is there nothing in between those two? Is there no way of “agreeing to disagree”? And by that I don’t mean “agreeing not to disagree,” which is what most people agree to, but rather, “agreeing to disagree.” That is, is it possible to agree to continue the discussion, and search honestly and openly and with mutual concern for the truth, even when (one might say especially when) we disagree? There are some pretty volatile moments in this movie. There are times when the two men nearly blow apart. What keeps them together? What allows the dialogue to continue? What kinds of things nearly bring it to an end? If you can learn something from this movie about disagreeing with others, even concerning things that are very important to you and about which you are rightly passionate, then you will have taken an important first step in your education. Watch. Listen. Think. Then it will be time to – guess what – discuss, perhaps even disagree, maybe even quarrel. Will the room blow apart with anger and frustration? Will you sit silently, staring with contempt at those “idiots” over there who can’t seem to understand anything? Or is dialogue possible? file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/The%20Quarrel.html[8/20/2008 3:29:04 PM] The Quarrel

Notice I didn’t ask whether it was easy. If this movie teaches you nothing else, it should certainly teach you that it’s often not easy, even with the best of friends. I asked, is it possible? If not, what are we left with? If so, what kinds of things make it possible?

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/sangstj/Desktop/web%20pages/The%20Quarrel.html[8/20/2008 3:29:04 PM]