Thinking about the liberal arts

Several drew convincing distinctions between the liberal arts and alternatives. The phrase that popped up a lot was “trade school,” which I’m not sure is very accurate, at least not as an alternative that many Loras students would have faced. A better way to think of the distinction might be to begin in a place where a lot of you began your post—with your majors. Obviously, you all have one. But, at Loras are you locked into it in the same way you would be at, say, Iowa State? Moreover, are the courses you take outside your major just a bunch of 100-level offerings that meet requirements, or do these courses cohere in some way? Have they pushed you to develop your thinking outside your major, not just supplement it? (At the very least, the courses seem to have forced you to read Plato twice.)

I really liked the way most of you got beyond the liberal arts “sound bites” quickly in your answers. Yes, the liberal arts can make you well-rounded—but what difference does that make? The purpose of the liberal arts is to leave you well-rounded so that you are not a victim of one way of thinking. Several of you stated this well; I’ll mention Jenn not only because she gave a good example in her blog but also because she used it in class—her claim that courses in philosophy and ethics have caused her to think about science (and medicine) differently. I took that to mean that she might actually think about science in a very unscientific way, which I think is a good thing. No doubt the same can be said of my field, religious studies/theology, where the absence of other ways of thinking threatens to leave the profession unaware of the very issue we are supposed to focus on—the presence of God in the world.

We’ve been talking in class about the way Ralph Ellison gives us complex situations—almost no-win situations. It strikes me that some of what people wrote about the liberal arts smacks of that problem. For example, Abby and Nick corresponded about how the liberal arts should respond to a fast-paced, changing world. I don’t think anyone would argue that our studies should not answer changes in the world, but there is a danger here as well, for if we find ourselves chasing after all of the changes the world adopts, won’t we lose sight of what is lasting or important? For example, I admit that I want to be part of an educational system that is current, but I’m really bothered by the fact that fewer and fewer people pick up books and read them these days. I think something has been lost. Although several of you addressed problems like this when you summarized Nussbaum, I did want to single out Maria, who pointed out that the liberal arts don’t necessarily “liberate” us in traditional ways. We should not, she said, think of ourselves as liberated from the world but for it; that is, we are freed from our preconceptions so that we can be more aware of our surroundings.

This was a very good online discussion that extended into the class Monday as well. I appreciate that, and I hope to hear ideas and challenging comments from everyone as the semester unfolds. jw