Talk:Some Thoughts Concerning Education/Archive 1

Good Article

Hi Awadewit. Surely I'll pass this article—nice job—but now I can get even for Talk:Auguste Rodin! :-)

• You said A.R. was wordy in places: "As England became increasingly mercantilist and secualarist, the humanist educational values of the Renaissance, which had enshrined scholasticism, came to be regarded as superfluous and irrelevant." Now I don't mind this, but I must point it out. Could we link mercantile, secular, and humanist?

I don't think it's wordy, I just think it's trying to say way too much in one sentence. But once I start to break it up, it balloons out of control. :)

• Minor text issues: "secualarist", "activies", second para calls it Some Thoughts on Education

I'll fix those - it must have been late.

• Can you indicate whether the italics in quotes are Locke's?

They are; he uses a lot of italics. I will add in an "emphasis Locke's."

• Ref 27 and 37 could be combined.

I despise combined references. It discourages including specific page numbers.

• I wonder if others would consider the tone too essay-like. It doesn't bother me, but policy literalists might point out:
  • "Moreover, compared to other educational programs, such as The Whole Duty of a Woman (1696) and Rousseau’s Emile, which was still to come, Locke’s has a strikingly liberating potential for women." (uncited but given; maybe "strikingly" is too much?)
  • "Although one could argue that Locke’s statement indicates that he places a greater value on female than male beauty..." (cited but mentioning for essay tone)

This whole essay-thing gets on my nerves sometimes. One has to explain the connections between ideas for readers.

• "He was also a "perfectionist"; he revised and expanded Some Thoughts five times before his death." Not sure what purpose the quotes serve here. And "timid" in sentence before. Is it because they are the words the sources used?

Yes, Axtell uses those words.

• "In making this claim, Locke was arguing against both the Augustinian view of man, which grounds its conception of humanity in original sin, and the Cartesian position..." A cite would be nice here, as the article is claiming argument against specific movements/views.

But, as the scientists keep telling me, it's common knowledge! I'll get a citation.

Good luck in FA if that's where you're headed. –Outriggr § 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. I will work on these things. I will be heading for FA in a few weeks, after I have added some more material. Awadewit 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gender

In the final passage in the Gender section, the expression "liberating potential" ("Locke’s educational theory appears to have a liberating potential for women") seems jargony (as in, most people wouldn't have a good idea of its meaning) or vague. Also, I think it could be percieved as being a little POV. I can't think of any obvious alternatives and didn't want to touch a value-laden area of a freshly featured article. Any suggestions? Leon 03:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me what seems jargony? Also, it is supposed to be a bit vague since it is only a possibility. I don't really think that the statement is open to dispute, though, since the whole statement is: "Moreover, compared to other educational programs, such as best-selling conduct book The Whole Duty of a Woman (1696), the female companion to The Whole Duty of Man (1657), and Rousseau’s Emile, which was still to come, Locke’s educational theory appears to have a liberating potential for women." The Whole Duty of Woman was a companion volume to the Whole Duty of Man; that writer believed that a whole separate book was necessary for women. You can read about Rousseau's attitude toward female education in Emile at that page. I have been editing over there as well, but that page is far from complete, still the section on "Book V" should help you out. Would the sentence read better if it said: "Moreover, compared to other educational programs, such as the best-selling conduct book The Whole Duty of a Woman (1696), the female companion to The Whole Duty of Man (1657), and Rousseau’s Emile, which was still to come, both of which had entirely separate philosophies of education for female education, Locke’s educational theory appears to offer an egalitarian alternative." Awadewit 03:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's great! What seemed jargony to me was the phrase "liberating potential". I think "egalitarianism" is a clearer and more widely understood word/concept than "liberation". Leon 07:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Secondary source material

I am always on the lookout for more good secondary sources for this page. If you know of any, please list them here or on my talk page and I will read them and integrate them into the article, if possible. Thank you. Awadewit 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Current evaluation of the work?

I'm pretty surprised that the article doesn't discuss how Some Thoughts... is currently viewed among philosophers and the educational establishment. My gut tells me that they're a little more hostile than Whitchurch. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monocrat (talk • contribs) 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

• What current philosophers do you think are discussing Locke's Some Thoughts? I would be happy to put any such discussions in, if I knew about them.
• As far as I know, Locke is not that that relevant to the current educational establishment; I don't necessarily think they are hostile, though, I think that they view Locke's theories as "old-fashioned". I'm pretty sure that student teacher only encounter them in "history of education" courses, for example.
• During the nineteenth century, scientific theories of education took over (which have certainly remained with us, at least in the Western tradition, which is what I am most familiar with) and in the early twentieth century psychological theories joined those. Locke's theories, while important, have largely been superseded or been so integrated into later ideas that is difficult to call them specifically Lockean anymore. Sigmund Freud, John Dewey and Jean Piaget are some of the big names in the early twentieth century. If you are interested in this topic, there are some books in the bibliography on this page that might interest you, such as the Philosophers on Education. I just checked out another book entitled Visions of Childhood: Influential Models from Locke to Spock by Cleverley and Phillips but it seems to be a bit reductive so far. It would at least give you a 150-page history of the last 300 years, though. Anyway, my idea was to tell the story of Locke's relevance; he was not nearly as relevant after the time I mentioned in the article. Do you think I should include a sentence saying that after the beginning of the nineteenth century, other theories superceded Locke? Would that make the historical narrative clearer? Awadewit 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think such a sentence would be great! More would be better if you can reasonably do so: I understand and agree with your focus, but I'd kind of like to see how nineteenth and even twentieth century thinkers differed from and characterized the work. I really don't know how much of that is feasible, just thought I'd throw it out there.--Monocrat 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I will add what I can later tonight, but I think that more of what you are looking for is a history of the philosophy of education (which I have included as a link under the "See also") - I'm glad that I have intrigued you!. I want to make sure that this page stays focused on Locke's work and doesn't spiral out of control. Also, please do note that I am restricted by the scholarship here. If you happen to find any scholarship explaining Locke's influence on these later thinkers, that would be great (see my plea for references above!). Just quoting Dewey, Piaget, etc. would more than likely be original research. The research on the history of education is diffuse and hard to wade through - it covers philosophy, theories of education, the history of schooling, the history of childhood and the family, the emergence of children's literature, sociological data, etc. (I could go on and on). It's actually hard to find material because it is all spread out over all of these different fields. Awadewit 21:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me if you think this is sufficient and if the prose is good. Awadewit 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's really good! Thank you much!--Monocrat 03:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Latin quote

I have added external links to Horace's odes in Latin and in English, as an adaptation of IV.4 is used in his title sheet. I hope this is not a problem.--Ioshus^(talk) 16:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this for now. It adds too much text to the infobox and I am not sure that Locke himself asked for that quote to be added to the title page. Do you know if that quote appears on the title page to the first edition as well (the title page here is from the tenth edition, published well after Locke's death)? If it appears on the title page of the first edition, I would be more willing to incorporate a translation somewhere in the article itself. Awadewit 17:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What if you just <ref>the translation</ref> for now until we find out about the first edition? Plus it should be clear that is an adaptation of IV.4, and not exactly transcribed, as the reference on the title page suggests. I don't like untranslated Latin on Wikipedia...

Horace's work:

doctrina sed vim promovet insitam

rectique cultus pectora roborant;

utcumque defecere mores,

indecorant bene nata culpae.

My best translation (slightly different than in the article)

But education promotes innate strength

and proper development fortifies hearts;

in as much now as morals have declined

sins disgrace even the well born

--Ioshus^(talk) 18:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that problem has been solved. The first edition has no Latin text. I have now uploaded the first edition title page and included it in the article. Awadewit 18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Section below moved to Talk:An Essay Concerning Human Undertanding

Well, there's still the Cicero in the cover of "Essay on Humane Understanding".--Ioshus^(talk) 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That one appears on the first edition cover as well. Uploading now. Awadewit 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird, we're still dealing with an adaptation... It's quoted as:

Quam bellum est velle confiteri potius nescire quod nescias, quam ista effutientem nauseare, atque ipsum sibi displicere.

But Cicero wrote:

Quam bellum erat, Vellei, confiteri potius nescire, quod nescires, quam ista effutientem nauseare atque ipsum sibi displicere.

My translation, you might find better:

How much more befitting it would have been, Velleius, rather to admit that you didn't know what you didn't know, than to spit forth that nonsense, and arouse your own disgust.

Why does he adapt these parts? The Horace one was a slight deviation, but the way it's quoted on the 4th book, it's completely different than what Cicero wrote...--Ioshus^(talk) 23:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, in the eighteenth century authors and publishers most often quoted from memory. Very few people owned a lot of books, so they had to remember a lot of stuff. They usually get it slightly wrong and they are limited by what they remember. Second, I am not sure Locke asked for this quotation to be put on the cover. Locke was usually meticulous about his editions, but I don't know about this title page. I will have do research at some point on that issue. It could, of course, be that the publisher liked this quote, thought it applied, misremembered it, and put it on the title page. (I know nothing about seventeenth- and eighteenth-century editions of Cicero and Horace which adds an additional layer of complexity to the issue - are these standard 17c and 18c translations? That is another question to ask.) For me, this is not a pressing issue for the page and one that will take quite a bit of time to unravel. I'm sure someone somewhere has done it (there is a lot of scholarship on the Essay). I have the page on my list of pages to improve. It needs to be sourced and major sections such as "Reception" and "Historical context" need to be added. Right now, it is pretty much a straight-up explanation of the Essay. Awadewit 00:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Salve, Ioshe! It's so nice to see you here on the English Wikipedia — gratus apus nos! :)

FWIW, I don't see the new version as totaliter aliter. It's just updated from the past tense into the present tense, no? Do you think perhaps Locke wanted to give the quote the force of an ever-valid aphorism

“ It is a more beautiful thing to acknowledge that which you do not know, than to spout nonsense and disappoint even yourself. ”

rather than some episode from the past? It's possible that Locke mis-remembered the quote, but that seems unlikely in this case. Willow 00:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Locke misremembered a lot of quotes; the Essay is full of misremembered quotes. Like I said, it was fairly common because writers just didn't have access to a lot of books. Also, again, I am not sure that Locke asked for this quotation to be placed on the front of the Essay. His publisher might have done that. But, now we have a third option - someone intentionally altered the quotation. You can see how this all spirals out of control. Anyway, this whole discussion should be moved the Essay page, I think. Awadewit 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

--

Vandalism on main page

Why can't there be at least something that prevents vandals from blanking the page or replacing the page or whole sections with a single word? There must be a way! Awadewit 03:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

At least we have that bot that automatically reverts it. Quadzilla99 04:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice page without vandalism! 207.195.244.250 09:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A big thank you to all of those vandal-fighters out there! As the primary author of this page, it is a relief to see it so quickly reverted. Awadewit 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I really am sick of that Colbert stuff.  ;) Malan89 21:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Humanism & Scholasticism

As England became increasingly mercantilist and secularist, the humanist educational values of the Renaissance, which had enshrined scholasticism, came to be regarded by many as irrelevant.^[3]

I'm unsure about this sentence. I have always been taught that scholasticism and humanism are two very different frameworks for learning, the first concentrating on the resolution of conflicts between philosophers through logic and dialectics, and prevalent in the early middle ages, and the second instead concentrating on the study of the humanities as recommended by classical sources, and prevalent in the late middle ages/Renaissance. The article correctly point out that by Locke's time thinkers were challenging the unquestioned reverence of classical authorities. But I'm not sure what scholasticism has to do with it all. Could someone explain? MAIS-talk-contr 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that scholasticism concentrates on a dialogic structure of learning (although later scholasticism adopted the classics) and that humanism emphasizes the classics, but scholasticism lasted long after the middle ages. Locke and others of his time were reacting against Aristotelian scholasticism in particular (that is why I included that quote about how Aristotle dominated the universities). In the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, for example, Locke denounces the Scholastics' "disputatious" nature and their endeavors to twist language only in the service of winning arguments (III.x.7-10). If you want to read a little bit more on this see John Locke at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. That article mentions a bit about scholasticism. Otherwise, I suggest that you head to the library as wikipedia's own pages are not very good on this topic. Awadewit 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The bit I'm confused about is how humanist educational values "enshrined" scholastic values when humanism and scholasticism were so different... mais ^talk 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The scholasticism of the middle ages was quite important to humanist scholars; when they adopted it, they added more of an emphasis on the classics. Hence, Aristotelian scholasticism. It is that Aristotelian scholasticism that Locke and others were reacting against at the end of the 17c. I'm afraid that I only know the bare bones history of these developments. I think that there is a tendency to think that the Renaissance and humanism was an entire break with the past when in fact it was not. Thinking about how humanists used the traditions that came before them - adapted them and molded them - is perhaps the best way to think about these issues. If you have any ideas about how I can better explain this in the article, please let me know. There are just so many concepts and so much background, that I basically just tried to lay out the basics. Awadewit 19:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Please do not change the notes. These are all very carefully constructed. Some Thoughts is quoted from the Hackett edition by page number (clearly introduced at note 8). I was going to add the section numbers into the article text at a later date. Using multiple editions in the notes is simply confusing and unnecessary. Thank you. Awadewit 19:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have paid more attention from which book you were quoting. I should have known better. I erroneously assumed it was from the same one I have; John Locke (1632–1704). Some Thoughts Concerning Education. The Harvard Classics. (1909–14), p. 50, §33. Sorry about that. :) Jeeny (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded harsh. It's just that with all of the vandalism going on, I'm a little on edge. I was going to stay away from the page today, but that plan didn't work out as well as I had hoped. Awadewit 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You weren't harsh. It's totally understandable, as you have a lot invested in this. And it's on the front page! I was in the wrong, by just jumping in like that, and I didn't notice the vandalism going on -- at that time. Because it's on the front page many come and edit, and , of course the vandalism is at its worst. I've had similar experience. So, I think I know how you feel. Cheers! Jeeny (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit to add) I do not mean to compare myself to you with your FA article status! Just that I've invested a lot of time on an article to have it vandalized time and again, or mercifully edited. You've done a GREAT job! Congratulations! Hang in there. :) Jeeny (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work

What an enjoyable article. Wonderfully written and not too lengthy on any topic. I didn't find it too essay like and as I knew nothing of the subject it was an excellent introduction to the subject. Many thanks.--Sdlogan 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. One of my aims in this article was to write a succinct introduction to a text on which it is easy to write pages and pages (a.k.a. way too many kilobytes). Awadewit 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy importance rating

I would argue that this article is "vital to understanding philosophy". The philosophy of education has a long, recognized tradition, stretching back to Plato's Republic. Rousseau's Emile is another text that would qualify under this topic. Certainly this article does not "delve into the minutiae of philosophy, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed" (a description of "low"). I am fully cognizant when articles I write are of low importance. Of all of the articles that I have written (see User:Awadewit), this one above all is worthy of "high" priority. For example, someone came along and rated Mary Wollstonecraft as "high" - I would have given that a "mid". So, please don't think that I am going for self-aggrandizement here. Awadewit | talk 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just plain disagree. I read the 'vital to understanding philosophy' comment as 'to undertsanding philosophy' rather than as ' to understanding 'philosphy or education, science, etc.' There are very few, if any, books or articles that are vital to understanding philosophy. You can understand a lot about philosophy without having read Plato's Phaedo, or Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, or Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (thank God!). The general reaction in the philosophy department here is 'never heard of it'. I don't think that people here have a limited understanding of philosophy as a result. It is a mistake to think of importance=low or mid tags as a sign that the article or its subject are unimportant. The importance tags are for the use of people in various Wikiproject groups, not for wiki readers to use to evaluate the importance of the article to them. Because, the 'importance' ratings are assigned by various different project groups, it is to be expected that an article that has importance = top for one project group will have importance = low for another group.

On another topic, classifying articles on people using the Wikiproject:philosophy rating system does not come easily to me, and I do not think I am being consistent. Gallileo is pretty damn important, and very well known, but, as far as philosophy is concerned, he is of interest to very few people outside of philosophy of science. So, I rated him something like mid-low (can't quite recall), in spite of it paining me to do so. Locke was clearly much more important for philosophy as a dicipline.

• Take home message: I don't care what the importance rating is. If you have good evidence that Wikiproject:philosophy should treat this as a high importance article, rate it 'high'.Anarchia

• In the books that I have read about Some Thoughts, such as that by Yolton, they usually say something like "Some Thoughts Concerning Education" is the most important philosophical work on education since Plato." To me that indicates that the work is fairly important. Also, I would disagree with you that you can understand philosophy without reading its major primary texts. Why don't we compromise on mid? Awadewit | talk 12:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)