The Lord’s Prayer: What Does “Lead Us Not Into Temptation” Mean?

The Lord’s Prayer is, of course, the perfect prayer. I don’t know that we have to offer any sort of proof for this other than the fact that it is the prayer given by Our Lord Himself. In St. Luke’s Gospel we read,

And it came to pass, that as he was in a certain place praying, when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him: Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.

And he said to them: When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.

Image result for saint luke ox

St Luke’s version seems just a little scaled down, and I’m sure there is a good reason for this. Fortunately, though, we have more than one Gospel from which to get the whole story!

St. Matthew records the words of the prayer at greater length!

Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.

Image result for saint matthew

That this is the perfect prayer is attested to by St Augustine, who said,

if we pray rightly and fittingly, we can say nothing else but what is contained in this prayer of Our Lord.

Image result for saint augustine

Since it has come up in the news recently, I have been thinking particularly of the sixth petition  in the prayer: “And lead us not into temptation.”

It has been suggested that perhaps this particular formation of words in English is the result of a bad or faulty translation.

Well, I suppose those of us who don’t know any Greek or Latin will just have to let the experts tell us what to think when it comes to the translation. Ignorance of the classic languages often results in one having to simply bow in deference to the experts.

Now, I happen to know just enough Greek to make my way around a first or second year Greek textbook, and even to read bits and pieces, fragments, of classical literature. Perhaps a little Xenophon, snippets of Aristotle, a little Herodotus – but better than any of these, I am able to make my way through the New Testament in Greek – although slowly.  Especially when I am reading from a Greek – English interlinear translation!

Image result for new testament greek interlinear

When it comes to the Lord’s Prayer, I suppose we have to consider the fact that Our Lord spoke Aramaic. Nonetheless, I think we have to also accept the fact that the only authoritative versions of the prayer were written by the Evangelists in Greek.

As far as I know, there is no official Aramaic text of The Lord’s Prayer.

The sixth petition of the Lord’s prayer,  “Lead us not into temptation,” is written,

“καὶ μὴ  εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν” 

and in CAPS,

“ΚΑΙ ΜΗ ΕΙΣΕΝΕΓΚΗΣ ΗΜΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΝ”

Now if I were to translate this I would render it thus:

and (καὶ) do not (μὴ)  lead in (εἰσενέγκῃς) us (ἡμᾶς) into (εἰς) the trial/temptation (πειρασμόν)

The word “εἰσενέγκῃς” is the aorist subjunctive active of the verb “εἰσφέρω“. Which means  “I lead into, bring in, announce.”

So to translate εἰσενέγκῃς as Do not lead us into is an excellent translation of the Greek -speaking as a tertiary level Greek teacher. And the word “Πειρασμοσ” (peirasmos) is rendered by “experiment,” “trial,” or “temptation.”

Thus the sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer seems to be excellently translated as Do not lead us into temptation or Lead us not into temptation.

What does this mean?

Well, here we must go to St. Thomas just as the ancient Israelites went to Joseph in Egypt. And,of course, St. Thomas never disappoints. Speaking about the last three petitions of the Lord’s Prayer he says,

We are directed to beatitude accidentally by the removal of obstacles. Now there are three obstacles to our attainment of beatitude. First, there is sin, which directly excludes a man from the kingdom, according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, etc., shall possess the kingdom of God“; and to this refer the words, “Forgive us our trespasses.”

And here is the crux!

Secondly, there is temptation which hinders us from keeping God’s will, and to this we refer when we say: “And lead us not into temptation,” whereby we do not ask not to be tempted, but not to be conquered by temptation, which is to be led into temptation.

He finishes,

Thirdly, there is the present penal state which is a kind of obstacle to a sufficiency of life, and to this we refer in the words, “Deliver us from evil.”

I must confess that I found it revealing when St Thomas said that when we say lead us not into temptation, “we do not ask not to be tempted.” 

That is precisely what I used to think the prayer meant. Don’t let me be tempted.

Whether Oscar Wilde actually said “I can resist anything but temptation,” I think the sentiment is shared by many. And so we might pray lead us not into temptation!

But, if we reflect further on the word temptation (πειρασμόν- peirasmon) we see that it appears first to mean experiment or attempt or trial and then temptation. In other words suppose we compared ourselves to olympic athletes- what is it that we are practicing for? What are all those long training sessions for? Why all the painstaking exercise and long hours spent listening to coaches? Isn’t it all so that we can compete in a trial? Doesn’t every Olympic athlete want to have an opportunity to prove himself?

In other words the contest or competition is the trial.

The actual race is the trial or experiment of strength and endurance. And such is a temptation.

Image result for olympic athletes

Christians are just like athletes. St. Paul is thinking along the same lines when he addresses Timothy,

But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. Be sober.

For I am even now ready to be sacrificed: and the time of my dissolution is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming. Make haste to come to me quickly.

Perhaps the Christian will always avoid the near occasion of sin. But this does not mean that the Christian will pray that God will remove every trial of his strength, every temptation. As a matter of fact, it could be that this is God’s very plan by which he helps souls to gain strength and merit- that is, by allowing for temptations to enter into our paths that, with His grace, we can overcome.

Image result for carrying the cross renaissance

“Lead us not into temptation” is an excellent way to express these things. Of course God is not the cause of evil. Nonetheless, don’t we pray that God will provide for our spiritual growth in holiness by allowing us to undergo trials that are within our power to overcome?

So how can we express all of these things? What words can we come up with that say:

  1. “Please God, provide us with the contests, trials, and temptations that by your grace we will overcome and grow in your love.”
  2. “Do not let us go untried”
  3. “Let us not fall when we are tempted”

If we were to say, “Do not let us be tempted,” this would be against our own spiritual good.  If we were to say “Let us not fall in temptation,” this would exclude the notion that we ought, as “Christian Athletes” pray for contests of our strength that are proportionate to our ability.

Thus, by the words Lead us not into temptation”, we should understand, “O Lord, let us be tested in the contests of life that You, O Lord, mercifully and lovingly allow to be placed on our paths. But we beg you, Gracious Lord, to not let us perish or fall in those trials.”

Image result for temptations of christ

 

Advertisements
Posted in Aquinas, Lord's Prayer, The Passion | Tagged , | 6 Comments

Celebrating Christ The King Sunday In A Democratic Republic

Can we all just admit it? The chief disadvantage of living in the “greatest nation on God’s green earth” is that we Americans find it just a little tougher to sympathize with and even celebrate Monarchy.

I mean, wouldn’t we rather celebrate “Christ the President of the Universe?” This idea of Christ as the king is practically a frontal assault on all of our inclinations as patriotic Americans!

Image result for christ the king

In other words, if we all know that the democratic republican form of government under which we live is the most suitable government for mankind, doesn’t this realization dampen our enthusiasm a wee bit for celebrating monarchy and kingship- and therefore, all that is entailed by theme of the last Sunday of the liturgical year?

The fact that Pope Pius XI added this feast to the Roman calendar fairly recently (1925) makes me think that he knew it would come as a little bit of a shock to free thinking and independent Americans. I am sure he meant to give a slap in the face to  the rising and militant secularism of the time – and certainly he was thinking about the aggressive and violent assault on religious liberty in Mexico. Is there a greater antithesis to the mind of the secularist than the concept of Christ as the king of the universe?

Image result for mexico cristero miguel pro

As a High-School teacher, it often befalls my lot to read Herodotus,’ The Histories, his legendary and not so succinct account of the “Persian War.” Herodotus details the rise and “worldwide” dominance of Persia, until it was thwarted in its inexorable western expansion by a relatively small group of democratic free thinking Greeks, at such places as Marathon and Thermopylae.

If there is a lesson to be learned from Herodotus, it is certainly this: As mighty as the Persian monarchs were, as massive as their armies grew, as multitudinous as were their servile and oftentimes sycophantic minions, they were nonetheless no match for the wits and bravery of a free thinking democratic people. For heaven’s sake, Athens was the very cradle of democracy and yet according to Herodotus, Athens very nearly single-handedly put a stop to the seemingly all-powerful and haughty King Xerxes!

Image result for xerxes

One cannot read Herodotus without feeling a twitch of exultation about the wit and resourcefulness and spunk that seems to arise when men think for themselves and agree by mutual compact to band together in a great cause. One cannot refrain from thinking that there is something beautiful about men who rule themselves democratically!

And so how is an American Catholic supposed to feel this Sunday? The very fabric of our society, our notions of law and reason and science and culture were bequeathed to us by the Greeks. Americans pride themselves on self direction. If I remember correctly our War of Independence was directed against overthrowing the rule of a monarch.

Image result for George the third

And although the French were exceedingly helpful to us in our efforts, we have never been quite comfortable with them either for all of their aristocratic leanings. Many Americans like Thomas Jefferson were at first quite sympathetic about the overthrow of the Catholic monarchy in France during their so-called “Revolution.”

But again here we are, patriotic Americans confronted with celebrating the very thing, the defeat of which, provided a foundation for the American Republic- Monarchy!

As a church organist and the “official four hymn selector” for my parish, I will choose the following hymns:

  1. Alleluia Sing To Jesus, His The Scepter His The Throne!
  2. Crown Him With Many Crowns!
  3. The King of Love My Shepherd Is.
  4. To Jesus Christ Our Sovereign King.

I like these hymns and given the fact that I am not singing the “Gregorian Propers” as I think I should be, these hymns are the next best thing. But notice the unfamiliar-to-Americans trappings of monarchy!

We have sceptres!

Image result for sceptre

And (gasp!) Crowns!

Image result for crown renaissance

And thrones!

Image result for throne

Oh the horror! How can Catholics celebrate such things if Monarchy is an unsuitable form of government?

I wonder if many Christians simply take in “Christ the King of the Universe” Sunday like many other things that the Faith proposes. After all the Church proposes all sorts of things for our belief which are simply not consonant with sound science and ordinary reason. So it’s perhaps best not to think about such things.

As if to say, perhaps there is a very real divide between faith and reason. When one goes to church or to worship, it is best to simply hang up one’s coat and hat and intellect on the rack outside the church to be donned only upon exit.

Image result for church vestibule coat rack

Could it be that Kingship or Monarchy is indeed the fitting rule for mankind? This is not to say that this or that specific group of humanity should adopt a monarchical form of rule immediately. This is not to say that the American representative form of government by which we govern ourselves is not in fact the very best form of government available to us right now on our own time and place. Perhaps that form of rule is best relative to the manners customs and mores of this or that people.

Image result for parliament

But if one had to choose the form of government that is simply best without qualification, what would one choose? What form of government did God Himself choose to rule his universe? Did he choose the best government? Is it relevant to our eternal happiness that He is a monarch? I guess the answer is obvious.

It is a fundamental rule of Christian living that the habits and affections that we develop on earth are significant in disposing our hearts towards heaven. As St. Thomas Aquinas was fond of saying “Grace perfects nature.” We are disposed towards the things of grace by the things of nature. Faith and reason are not opposed but rather the more we strive to reason aright, the more we provide an intellectual disposition for the gift of God’s grace.

That Christ is a monarch is a significant part of our faith. Insofar as we might identify various Christian monarchs that did not overstep their authority or abuse their power, perhaps every Christian might gather some lessons concerning how we ought to think, behave and feel in the presence of a monarch? Perhaps there are minor and major points of reverence and courtly behavior that are lost on the disciples of Democracy? Most importantly, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned about humbly and immediately adapting our will to that of his sovereign majesty, Christ the King; deference to a king is something a little more difficult for we rugged American individualists, who are accustomed to think it always right to have a say in our own affairs.

Image result for Benjamin franklin coonskin hat in french court

Notwithstanding any obstacles in our path ascribable to our own political custom, I suspect that our celebration of Christ The King of the Universe this weekend will strike most Christians with the fitting annual realization that “Yes! Christ is the King! Christ should be enthroned in the very center and principal place in our hearts. Every Christian will undoubtedly be struck with the fitting thought that inasmuch as we have earthly concerns and earthly rulers, nonetheless Christ is ultimately in charge and we are to do nothing except it be his will!

Viva Christo Rey!

 

 

Posted in Aquinas, Sacred Music | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

Did You Know That Drinking Milk Is An Excellent Preparation For Eating Meat?

Sometimes St. Paul seems downright condescending!

For whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God: and you are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (Hebrews 5:12)

There are some things in scripture which are like “strong meat”;

Image result for meat

the prologue of Saint John’s Gospel for example, or when Saint Paul says,

Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Strong meat indeed. He continues,

About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

Now, I know that in comparison to these passages there are others in scripture which are much easier to understand. These passages are “milk.”

A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you…

Image result for milk

A passage much more readily understandable, though still inexhaustible in its depth.

So I can understand that St. Paul’s use of the meat and milk metaphor is primarily referring to the relative accessibility of various teachings in Scripture. Some teachings are meat and others milk.

But with the “rule of charity” with which St. Augustine bids we interpret all Scripture, I would  like to extend the metaphor.

Before doing so, we might pause just a little to appreciate Saint Paul’s use of the food metaphor in his teaching. I find this comparison absolutely spot on, compelling, delightful and persuasive.  I count myself among the Hebrews whom St. Paul justly rebuked for their slowness and dullness, but when St. Paul talks food, I am completely on board. To my way of thinking, he could not be any clearer!

In other words, to those of us who are ‘not quite there’ yet with respect to our spiritual understanding, to those of us who are not intellectually mature, St Paul says,

You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature…

Image result for sippy cup with milk

And this brings me to my point.

In comparison to scripture, which in its transcendent wisdom is all meat, even the very best of Greek literature and philosophy might certainly be compared to milk!

Ordinarily, I would prefer to compare the literature of Homer, Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides to a fine Bordeaux. Among the pagan authors, Homer would be the Chateau Margaux!Image result for margaux chateau

The literature of the Greeks is wine in contrast to the tasteless literature of our own contemporaries, which could only be compared to water. ( Although I hate to insult water by the comparison – would Diet Soda work better?)

I would be remiss not to treat my readers with a few sips of this wine!

Through the Greeks we learn that the meaning of our suffering is not suffering, but the meaning of suffering is truth! As the watchmen says in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon

Zeus has led us on to know, the Helmsman lays it down as law that we must suffer, suffer into truth.

Image result for Aeschylus

And similarly, his chorus of elderly Athenians teach us that no matter how much grief there is in the world, the good will win out in the end!

Sing a  song of sorrow, a song of sorrow, but the good prevails!

And what better encomium of marriage could you find than what Homer teaches us through the mouth of Odysseus,

for there is nothing better in this world than that man and wife should be of one mind in a house. It discomfits their enemies, makes the hearts of their friends glad, and they themselves know more about it than any one.

Image result

Or who can not be moved by Sophocles’ denunciation of the root of all sin, Pride, when through the mouth of the prophet Tiresias he says,

All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.

Nonetheless, as wise as the Greeks are, the wisdom of man is, comparatively speaking, childish in comparison to the wisdom of God.

A man is called childish compared to God; just as a boy, in comparison to a man. (Heraclitus, DK 79)

And so it seems to me that the wisdom of man, found predominantly in Greek literature, is aptly compared to milk, the stuff of which children are made.

I don’t mean to disparage the wisdom of man by calling it milk. Every child needs milk and so every intellectual child needs Greek literature.

Image result for greek literature

I don’t know much about milk except that, somehow, if a child drinks enough of it and for a long time, he will soon be ready for meat and other solid food. Don’t ask me how. Milk is wonderful, there is evidently something incredibly nourishing about it. The point is that the literature of the great pagans stands in just the same way to the developing souls of men as does milk to the bodies of children.

And so, as St. Thomas points out,

…it should be noted that sacred doctrine is, as it were, the food of the soul: ‘With the bread of life and understanding she shall feed him’ (Sir. 15:3) and in (24:29): ‘They that eat me shall yet hunger, and they that drink me shall yet thirst.’ Sacred doctrine, therefore, is food and drink, because it nourishes the soul.

And so we might ask:

Do you wish to dispose yourself towards the nourishment of the solid food that is Sacred Doctrine?

Do you wish to feast on the meat of Holy Scripture?

If your answer is yes to both these questions, then by all means imbibe at length, and in great quantity, the milk that is pagan Greek literature!

Posted in aeschylus, Aquinas, Augustine, catholic education, Heraclitus, Homer, Sacred Doctrine, Socrates | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

“Do Not Be Called Teachers.” Why Not?

As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’
You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.

Now it is not only clear from this text, but I have had it on authority from multiple sources that the word ‘rabbi’ means ‘teacher.’

Hence the King James version of this same passage reads,

And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

Now what exactly is Our Lord saying here? Is this a case of Our Lord using hyperbole as he was sometimes known to do (e.g. “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee”). So under this interpretation he might be saying,

Don’t get puffed up and arrogant because of your various titles, especially those that indicate that you might have some kind of wisdom!

Or perhaps, along the same lines, our Lord is simply exhorting us to humility? As if he is saying,

Given that teachers and instructors tend to be intellectually proud, do not be called teachers!

I am not a professor at an Ivy League school. Nor am I a professor at a tier 2 school, nor a professor at a tier 3 school. As a matter of fact I am not really a professor at all!

No, I am a ‘teacher’ at a relatively small unknown (and unknown unfairly!) high-school. Nonetheless, even I know what it feels like to be intellectually proud! So I can imagine that our Lord might say “do not be called teacher” to me.

Image result for professor arrogant

But could He have also been saying something else?

For example could Our Lord have been saying,

Do not be called teachers, because guess what? There are no teachers among you!

Could it be that our Lord is not just using hyperbole, but is rather pointing out that, in the strict sense of the term, there are precisely no teachers among men? In other words, He is saying,

Call no man teacher, because God alone has claim to this title.

God alone is a teacher in the most interior and prime way. And therefore our Lord is reminding us that God alone is to be thanked and praised for being the cause of every good thing we have including our most prized possession, to wit, any small wisdom that we might have?

Why is this?

Well, just think about it for a minute. Think about what a teacher is. Isn’t a teacher supposed to be someone who teaches? And if someone teaches, doesn’t that mean that he has some sort of knowledge which he transfers from himself to a student?

In other words, since he knows something he is able to cause his students to know those same things through a process which we call “teaching.”

Related image

But wait a moment! Is this really possible?

Is a teacher really able to cause knowledge in his students?

Interestingly the Latin word for teacher is ‘doctor, doctoris’ and it is no wonder, because we might ask the exact same questions about doctors. Our Lord might just as well have said,

Do not be called doctors.

This is because, as we all know, a doctor is not someone who makes sick people healthy. A doctor is rather someone who supposedly knows how to work with nature so that the sick will heal themselves!

As the great Heraclitus said,

Wisdom is to speak the truth and act, according to nature, giving ear thereto.

Related image

The wise doctor is, thus, someone who ‘listens to nature’ and ‘speaks’ and ‘acts’ according to what nature herself proposes in bringing a sick person to health.

But the important thing to remember is that the principles of health are already in the sick person! The doctor did not implant these seeds of health in his patient.

The seeds of his health are already there and the doctor merely knows how to aid those seeds to flourish and restore the sick person to health. He does this by either removing impediments or supplementing what nature herself needs in order to restore health.

And therefore, St. Thomas Aquinas points out that, just as the seeds of health are in the sick, so are the seeds of knowledge already in the ignorant. The teacher is one who aids and abets nature in bringing those ‘active’ seeds of knowledge to full flower.

Image result for seeds germinating

Therefore, just as the doctor is said to cause health in the sick man with nature working, so also one is said to cause knowledge in another by the activity of the power of reasoning in that person, and this is called teaching. In this way one person is said to teach another and to be his teacher.

And he further distinguishes two ways that the mind might come to know,

Therefore, just as someone can be healed in two ways — first by the action of nature only, second by the collaboration of nature and medicine — so also there are two ways of acquiring knowledge. First, when the mind moves by its own natural power to an understanding of things previously unknown to it. This is called discovery (inventio). Second, when the mind is helped by an outside power of reason. This is called teaching (disciplina).

But the incipient causes of all of our knowledge have been implanted in us by God Himself. The wise teacher, like the wise doctor, is one who merely knows how to water and nourish those incipient causes of our knowledge. The teacher can not cause knowledge in a student except as a sort of secondary cause; the teacher might facilitate the growth of knowledge in his student from the active seeds of knowledge that were implanted in the student by God Himself!

It was He alone who planted in us the ability to understand. It was God who sowed the first principles in us and the light of intelligence by which those principles are known and in which all of our subsequent knowledge is rooted.

God alone is the primary and interior cause of our knowledge. God alone can be called teacher.

Now you dear reader, if you see for yourself what I am saying, and if this has provoked you to understand something new, may call me ‘teacher.’

But you may only call me ‘teacher’ in a secondary way. Because I have only enabled you to see something that you ‘knew all along’ in a seminal way.

Posted in Aquinas, catholic education, Heraclitus | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Five Good Reasons to Avoid Being Educated

Sometimes in life we need to face difficult truths.  If we have been on the wrong side of an issue, we need to be open to change, and open to declaring an “about-face.” Even if it hurts!

And so, after thirty years of teaching and promoting education, after thirty years of giving largely unsolicited advice to parents about educating their children, after thirty years fighting an uphill battle to help market education for struggling schools that purport to “educate,” I think it is now time to consider a different point of view. Do we really need to educate our children?

Why not just baptize them and give them a good training?

There is no need to pull down the current institutions of learning – our current schools colleges and universities. No need whatsoever, because they have all already abandoned education for at least a century now…that is, they have abandoned everything that the word stands for but have kept the word itself. And so there is no need to change marketing materials. We just need to understand that every time we hear the word ‘education’ nowadays, we should simply understand that what is really meant is “training.”

I wish to provide five excellent reasons why parents should avoid giving their children an education and should, rather, do all they can to give them a proper training– but before beginning, let us distinguish our terms just a little.

Education concerns itself with the refinement of the intellect so that it might bring all things to bear on the truth. Education is about forming the mind so that it can look throughout the world and the cosmos and see the various orders that exist.

To gaze upon the orders that exist – whether the orderly beauty amidst the ranks of the humblest creatures’ (even inanimate!) spheres of existence, or whether it is to gaze upon the order that exists among the sphere in which man himself lives – in society and in his own soul, or whether it is to marvel at the order that exists in the spheres above him-

Image result for copernican system

the starry heavens and even among the separated substances – and perhaps whether it is, at last, to gaze upon the Divine cause of all this order Himself, God.

This is, roughly, what education is about.

Training has to do with adapting the mind and making it excellent at special works; making the mind, and the hands, adept at the performance of specific and productive tasks.

Image result for surgery

Training involves developing a single-minded focus on a limited sphere of activity and developing the habits that belong to performing that activity with excellence! Whether managing a portfolio, or performing heart surgery, or installing fiber optic cables,

Image result for installing fiber optic cable

or designing efficient systems for selling anything on the internet! What a wonderful thing training is! Thank goodness we have schools colleges and universities which are “doing first-class work as training-schools.” Really, we can’t have too many of them.

In 1937, the American Libertarian Albert Jay Nock  had already noticed a confusion of these terms (i.e. Education and Training) and wrote about it in his famous essay “The Disadvantages of Being Educated”. When examining what was going on in the colleges and universities at the time, he said that the ‘education’ they purported to impart,

aimed at what we used to call training rather than education; and it not only did very little with education, but seemed to assume that training was education, thus overriding a distinction that formerly was quite clear. Forty years ago a man trained to proficiency in anything was respected accordingly, but was not regarded as an educated man, or “just as good,” on the strength of it. A trained mechanic, banker, dentist or man of business got all due credit for his proficiency, but his education, if he had any, lay behind that and was not confused with it.

Image result for banker

In other words, if a man is educated, that is something quite apart from whether he is trained to be ‘successful’ in the world. Education does not have a direct bearing on what is meant by success. If anything, education is something that lies further back in the soul. It is something “behind” training, without being necessary at all to training.

An interesting pastime for every teacher is following the path and careers of his former students. Teachers of course are naturally interested in what happens to their students after they leave their charge and make their path off to college or simply dive directly into the world.

It has often struck me, although I am not yet ready to make a sweeping generalization, that very often the students that appear to have the most intellectual talent and are perhaps the most industrious in their studies, do not, surprisingly, appear to be identical with the students that appear to make their way in the world in a manner that would be recognized as being the most “successful.”

Education, says Albert J. Nock,

“…leads a person on to ask a great deal more from life than life, as at present organized, is willing to give him; and it begets dissatisfaction with the rewards that life holds out.”

Whereas,

“Training tends to satisfy him with very moderate and simple returns. A good income, a home and family, the usual run of comforts and conveniences, diversions addressed only to the competitive or sporting spirit or else to raw sensation – training not only makes directly for getting these, but also for an inert and comfortable contentment with them.”

I hate to say it, but could it be that education might actually be counterproductive? Suppose you would like to have a successful son, could it be that insisting that he obtain an education might be to do nothing other than to place a sizable obstacle in his path?

I think so, and here are five excellent reasons why everyone should avoid being educated:

  1. Education instills in the mind of its suitors an interest in things that are of very little interest to most people.

This is easy to understand. Just go ahead and pick up a book of Euclid’s’ Elements. Here is  how it begins:

“A Point is that which has no part.”

What does that mean? And suppose we try to find out? Where will that leave us? Who really cares about what a point is anyway? What does this have to do with the price of a loaf of bread and a gallon of gasoline? Nothing really.  Can you blame anyone for not really caring about what a point and a line are?

Anyone who studies Euclid’s Geometry will quickly develop a taste for theoretical truth and, sometimes, a corresponding distaste for anything that smacks of the practical. And this leads to our second excellent reason.

2. Education fosters a distaste for practical things.

This point is again illustrated very well by the story told by the fifth century compiler of Greek manuscripts, Stobaeus:

… someone who had begun to learn geometry with Euclid, when he had learnt the first theorem, asked Euclid, “What shall I get by learning these things?” Euclid called his slave and said, “Give him threepence since he must make gain out of what he learns”.

A proper education, that is a liberal education, is called liberal precisely because it is not at the service of things practical. That is why it appears to have been only an education that the wealthy of aristocratic could afford to obtain. They had what they needed already for living well – at least as regards food, shelter and clothing.

3. Education tends to be divisive and isolates the one who receives it.

This reason was clarified for me by Mr. Nock. He says,

Education deprives a young person of one of his most precious possessions, the sense of co-operation with his fellows. He is like a pacifist in 1917, alone in spirit – a depressing situation, and especially, almost unbearably, depressing to youth. “After all,” says Dumas’s hero, “man is man’s brother,” and youth especially needs a free play of the fraternal sense; it needs the stimulus and support of association in common endeavour.

The student who makes the ill-fated decision to become educated will in that decision unknowingly cause the separation between himself and all of his peers, and indeed, perhaps even the greater part of humanity.

Image result for man island

Why is education divisive? Well, just think about Socrates for a moment. He was a gadfly! In his relentless pursuit of truth he could not help but to uncover and expose the lack of wisdom in anyone else who claimed to have wisdom. I am afraid that this is an inescapable characteristic of anyone who wishes to be educated or wise, he must walk in the footsteps of Socrates.

Training, on the other hand, brings one into society and helps one to fit in as a normal participant in the human race. Mr. Nock remarks,

At present one can afford only to be trained. The young person’s fellows are turning all their energy into a single narrow channel of interest; they have set the whole current of their being in one direction. Education is all against his doing that, while training is all for it; hence training puts him in step with his fellows, while education tends to leave him a solitary figure, spiritually disqualified.

4. Education creates a distaste for barter and exchange.

Now this is a real disadvantage for anyone who happens to live in this world. Liberal education, as was mentioned, arose out of man’s desire to know for its own sake. Liberal education arose out of the divine instinct for knowledge,  implanted by the Creator in our souls, an instinct that we call ‘wonder.’ Wonder is the desire to know something in its causes, and for its own sake. The person who wonders about something does not wonder because he wishes to make money or do something with the knowledge. He simply wishes to know. He is like a child in this regard.  Like a child he chants in his best Trochaic meter,

Twinkle twinkle little star,

How I wonder what you are!

Image result for star single

The child does not wish to sell the star. Socrates was poor. He did not sell his knowledge to students like the sophists of his day. Wisdom is not for sale. Like a beautiful lady, one does not court her for her wealth or for her connections or for some other advantage. She demands of her suitors that she be loved for her own sake. And just so does Lady Philosophy appear to Boethius in his prison cell after he has suffered the terrible ups and downs of fortune’s wheel.

By a liberal education, the mind of the student is habituated towards a love of things that cannot be bought or sold. Unfortunately, those who develop this love cannot help but develop a corresponding clumsiness and even distaste for things that are measured in terms of dollars and cents.

This leads us to the fifth reason why education should be avoided.

5. Education tends to produce the gentleman, and the gentleman no longer has a place in society.

Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman famously said,

Liberal Education makes not the Christian, not the Catholic, but the gentleman.  

Newman did not mean that liberal education produces a man who dresses and adopts the fashions of the day as they are set forth in say Gentleman’s Quarterly or some-such other worldly standard.  No, he meant that liberal education produces a refinement of mind, manners, speech, and bearing such that the man becomes properly responsive to beauty, goodness and truth!

Here are some highlights of the gentleman according to Newman:

Hence it is that it is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain…He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him;  … The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast;… He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; …he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. … He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort…

 

In this world we are taught that a person must “market” himself, and do what one may to make himself desirable over others in order to “get ahead.”

In the words of Mr. Nock,

Again, education tends towards a certain reluctance about pushing oneself forward; and in a society so notoriously based on the principle of each man for himself, this is a disadvantage.

And so it is clear that those who seek an education thereby seek at least the five disadvantages that I have enumerated. There are undoubtedly more, but these alone are enough to demonstrate how difficult life will be for the educated person.

Therefore, parents take note!

Do you desire successful children?

Do you hope that your children will fit in as normal and ‘happy’ participants in society?

Do you love your children to the extent that you hope they will live comfortably and harmoniously in this world?

Well then, if your answer was “yes” to these questions, then by all means, don’t educate them!

Posted in catholic education, classical education, college, education, liberal education, Newman, Socrates, truth for its own sake | Tagged , , , , | 11 Comments

The Elective System in Education: “You Cannot Train Everybody For Everything”

Whatever one may say about our twenty-eighth president’s views about The United States role as promoter of democracy and capitalism and interventionism throughout the world, I think we have to give him full-hearted applause for his views on authentic liberal education.Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Harris & Ewing bw photo portrait, 1919.jpg

Take this for example,

When you say a young person must be prepared for his life-work, are you prepared, is he prepared, are his parents prepared, to say what that life-work is going to be?

The answer to this is NO!

He proceeds,

Do you know a boy is going to be a mechanic by the color of his hair? Do you know that he is going to be a lawyer by the fact that his father was a lawyer? Does any average and representative modern parent dare to say what his children are going to be?

Again the answer to the first two questions is “no” and “no,” but there certainly are more than a few average modern parents who do in fact dare say what their children are going to be, or at least dare to say what their children wont be. Witness the shortage in religious vocations for example.

Wilson hits the nail on the head when he says,

My chief quarrel with the modern parent is that he does not know, and that he hands that question over to the youngster whom he is supposed to be advising and training.

The elective system of education which began in the university (where it properly belongs), and crept back into the college and has now permeated most high schools and is even seeping into (if you can believe it!) the primary school, is an exact exemplification of what Wilson is saying.

These days parents say to their children,

“Son, daughter, you must be successful in life. I don’t know what you are going to be or how you are going to accomplish this. I who am older and wiser than you don’t know how you should be educated. I don’t know what precise path you should take. I will not prescribe a certain path for you to follow. No… making these important decisions  about your life and your success must all be left up to you who are relatively ignorant about all things. Every choice about your intellectual formation must be made by you according to your own whims and passing fancies.

That is what the elective system is isn’t it? I just can’t get over how silly it is on the face of it. It represents a complete abdication of responsibility  on the part of those who are supposed to know better.

It would be like a pediatrician saying to a child ,

As your doctor I recommend health to you. But what health is and how you should acquire it is completely up to you. You must make your own diagnoses and choose your own prescriptions.

You might think that this comparison is too strong.

You say,

Yes- that would be ridiculous for doctors to let their patients diagnose themselves and write their own prescriptions. But the health of the body is a very delicate and important thing. There are very precise methods, rules, and best practices that must be adhered to in order to obtain and maintain health.

But Socrates would reply,

What is more important, the health of the body or the health of the soul? Which is more easy to achieve? If the health of the body requires certain precise methods and practices, how much more would the health of the soul require these!

It is not difficult to understand why parents abdicate their responsibilities as primary educators and why as a consequence, the children themselves, or rather the passions, whims and fancies of the children, become the primary architect of their own intellectual formation. The reason is that many parents no longer know what an education is. And so they substitute the imagined idea of their child’s success in a career, a career which they know not, for education.

This unknown career becomes the child’s purpose in life, and the school is asked to educate the child in order to make him “college and career ready.”

As Wilson says

“…when he says he wants his son’s training suited to his purpose of life he must admit his son has no purpose in life. Then we are asked to suit our processes to this undestined youth.”

Now this is a predicament. The school must educate children to be successful for a myriad unknown careers. Wilson write about the state of education in the early part of the twentieth century,

“With this complexity, what has the modern school attempted to do? It has attempted to do everything at once. It has said: Here are a lot of boys and girls whose future occupations we do not know and they do not know. They must be prepared for life. Therefore we must prepare everybody for everything that is in that life. We haven’t found it amusing. We haven’t found it possible. We have attempted it and we know we have failed at it. You cannot train everybody for everything. Moreover you are not competent to teach everything. There is not any body of teachers suited in gifts or training to do this impossible thing. Neither the schools nor those who guide them have attempted to make any discrimination with regard to purpose or to settle upon methods which will promise some degree of substantial success. That is the situation we are in.”

Wilson said this in 1909 speaking to the New York City High School Teachers Association.

More than a century later …. progress?

Posted in catholic education, college, education, Liberal Arts, liberal education | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

In Education, The End Depends On The Beginning.

Incidentally, I haven’t read much of the Roman poet Manlius who “flourished” in the first century AD. But his famous line “Finisque ab origine pendet” from the fourth book of his Astronomicon appears to have been adopted by Phillips Exeter Academy as its motto.

John Phillips who founded the school wrote:

“Above all, it is expected that the attention of instructors to the disposition of the minds and morals of the youth under their charge will exceed every other care; well considering that though goodness without knowledge is weak and feeble, yet knowledge without goodness is dangerous, and that both united form the noblest character, and lay the surest foundation of usefulness to mankind.”

Phillips Exeter, founded in 1781, is now, I would say, a fairly prestigious Academy claiming everyone from Daniel Webster to Pierre S. du Pont to Joseph Coors to Mark Zuckerberg as alumni. And no one would argue that these gentlemen haven’t been very useful to mankind.

File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg

John Phillips, banker and merchant that he was, stresses knowledge and goodness as things to be pursued because of their “usefulness to mankind.” Now just imagine for a moment, per impossibile,  that knowledge and goodness were not useful! Surely we would all be in big trouble!

If knowledge and goodness were only valuable as things to be pursued for their own sake, would John Phillips have laid the foundations of his school? I doubt it.

I suppose Phillips Exeter and its veritable “galaxy of names” of famous alumni is itself fulfilling its own motto “finis origine pendet.” The origins of the school are rooted in a fundamental utilitarian view of human life, and its entire 200 plus years of existence have born this philosophy out through the production of men whose names would supply almost a complete litany of worldly success.

But certainly, “the end does” in fact “hang from the beginning” to a great extent. Parents, schools, and indeed all who concern themselves with the formation of the young know the importance of a good beginning. The path of an arrow, its precise trajectory, velocity, and force can be determined by examining its beginning movement, so too, human life seems to have a trajectory that can almost be wholly predicted by what happens in the beginning.

But rather than fit man from the very beginning to be useful to himself and to others- (which at first glance appears like a very laudable goal!) genuine Catholic education seeks to dispose each person to be a fitting vessel for Divine Grace. Following the maxim that “grace builds on nature,” genuine Catholic education proposes that by acquiring the intellectual habits of truth, the mind of the student is more apt for Divine Truth.

And further, by acquiring habits of goodness, students are more disposed to living a life of the Theological Virtues.

And by acquiring virtues that allow us to see and respond to beauty, students are disposed to the appreciation of Him who is Beauty itself!

Habits that enable us to see order, unity, symmetry, harmony, and proportion, enable the young to see and respond to beauty in the world.

Developing these habits are “the beginnings” that we all want for our children, for then they are disposed to see the beauty of the Creator.

St. Bonaventure writes,

“In beautiful things St. Francis saw Beauty itself, and through His vestiges imprinted on creation he followed his Beloved everywhere, making all things a ladder by which he could climb up and embrace Him who is utterly desirable.”

One would hope that after 12 years of schooling, every student would be well on his way to having acquired the habits of truth, goodness and beauty. We even ask him to start a somewhat more independent life in college supposing that he will then pursue goodness, truth, and beauty on his own. One would hope that a student entering college would have the internal motivation, the habits, or at least the beginnings of these habits, to pursue the things that lead to his highest end.

Finisque ab origine pendet.

Catholic education ought to focus on good beginnings; the formation of the intellectual, moral and aesthetic virtues .

In this way, we pray that our students will all someday find Him Who is the beginning and end of all Truth, Goodness and Beauty.

Posted in beauty, catholic education, classical education, education, liberal education, truth for its own sake | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

A Third Reason Why Philosophy is The Best and Most Noble Music

Let’s see if we can make this argument quickly and effectively!

We have given two reasons why Socrates said that “Philosophy Is The Best And Most Noble Music.”

We now present a third. Maybe there are more than three? But Three is enough!

(Drum-roll)

Philosophy is the best and most noble music in so far as it shares the very purpose of music- that is to aid man in bringing his soul into harmony with reason. But, we hasten to add, philosophy aims at this purpose in a higher and even more sublime way than does music!

Therefore, in comparison with music, Philosophy is “the best and most noble music.”

A brief defense:

Music like the other fine arts aims at a catharsis of the passions, as Aristotle points out in his Poetics. (Granted that the Poetics is about Tragedy specifically- it is clear that the same argument could be made about the other fine arts as well) The fine arts are various arts by which we are able to make our senses and imagination and the passions more reasonable.

Music has an obvious relationship to our passions. And so it is very easy to see that when we listen to beautiful music we are bringing our interior life (at least partly) into a more orderly and reasonable state.

But isn’t it obvious that this is what the philosopher aims to achieve?

We could probably do a better job making this reason clearer- but let’s avoid pedantry, for a change, and be done with it!

Thus we have three reasons why Philosophy is the best and most noble music:

  1. Philosophy really knows nature whereas music only imitates it (imitation being loosely a sort of “knowing”)
  2. Philosophy brings our souls into harmony with the truth. It brings the whole of our interior life into agreement with itself and with God whereas music brings about a harmony of sound.
  3. Philosophy aims to perfect man by bringing his whole soul into the service of reason whereas music aims, more specifically, at bringing mans passions into the service of reason.

Philosophy is The Best and Most Noble Music.

Posted in Fine Arts, Music, philosophy, Socrates, Uncategorized, Wisdom | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Philosophy Is The Best And Most Noble Music: A Second Reason

Well, its time to give one more reason to support Socrates when he said that

Philosophy Is The Best And Most Noble Music

Otherwise I might forget it and then where will we be?

As we mentioned, one reason that “Philosophy Is The Best And Most Noble Music” stems from what a fine art is.

The fine arts imitate nature.  Whereas Philosophy does something that is even more than this- it does not just imitate nature, it knows nature! Therefore, comparatively speaking, philosophy is  “the best music.”

Here is a second reason:

Philosophy Is The Best And Most Noble Music (which seems to be a kind of free translation of “ὡς φιλοσοφίας μὲν οὔσης μεγίστης μουσικῆς”) because of what music is.

Another word for music is harmony. And harmony refers to, if nothing else, the bringing together in pleasant agreement various and different sounds.

To harmonize means to make agreeable sounds. To blend notes such that when heard together one hears “agreement.”

Thus to make harmony, or to make music, means to make agreement.

This agreement might be between one note and the next in a melody (horizontally). Or the agreement could be between all the notes among the chords (vertically).  Or both hopefully.

To make music mean to make agreement!

Now do you see how Music is like philosophy? Socrates devoted a life time to talking with people in an attempt to bring them to an interior agreement.

The Dialogues are all examples of this.

Someone claims to know something. Socrates, always interested in learning, engages him in a discussion in which Socrates ‘tests’ whether the claim to knowledge is really authentic.

In most cases Socrates discovers that those who claim to know something do not in fact know what they claimed. And Socrates attempts, with patience and charity, to show each of these pretenders to knowledge that they really don’t know.

How do you show someone who falsely claims to know something that he doesn’t know?

The best way to do this, as Socrates teaches us, is to show a person that if he asserts one thing which contradicts other things about which he is more certain, then the assertion cannot be true.

In other words, if someone has the truth then  all of his ideas must be in agreement with one another.

With the truth all things harmonize. With the truth all things are in harmony. With truth there is Music!

And so what could be clearer?

Music is the art which brings various sounds into harmony or agreement, Philosophy is the science in which our ideas and thoughts are brought into harmony; the method by which the entire intellectual life of man is brought into a beautiful agreement.

Therefore Philosophy, as Socrates maintains, is the best and most noble music!

Image result for greek playing lyre

Posted in Music, Philosophy of Nature, Seven Fine Arts, Socrates | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The First Reason Why Philosophy Is The Best And Noblest Music

The first reason why philosophy is the best and noblest music is taken from what music shares with all the fine arts but has in a preeminent degree. All the fine arts are works of reason. (I prefer to say that they are discoveries by reason instead of products of reason.)

In other words the fine arts imitate nature. They are not mental constructs as say “Lobachevskian Geometry.”

Image result for lobachevsky

Doesn’t Lobachevsky look kind of haunted?

Датотека:Sferni-trougao.gif

An equilateral triangle with three right angles…NOT!

The fine arts imitate the order in nature, they do not attempt to impose some new kind of order. The works of science fiction might be thought of as impositions of man’s imagination upon nature- or against nature, but the fine artist finds beauty in bringing out the order that is already in nature, and making it even more manifest to our senses.Image result for carl schmitt eggs painterMy wife’s grandfather (the “American Painter” Carl Schmitt) knew about the order in things – especially eggs!

The point here is that the fine arts are works or discoveries of reason that bring forth the order that is in nature. It is not the job of the fine arts to be “creative” as if the order that man creates is something that merits to be called ‘divinely inspired.’ The fine arts are gifts of the muses to man- not gifts of one man to another. This is why the fine arts are able to uplift men. They stem from principles which are above man, and therefore have the capacity to lift man above himself.

Music, preeminent among all the fine arts as a work of reason, is orderly and imitative of the order that is in nature.

This is easy to see if one considers that among the fine arts (e.g. sculpting, dancing, painting, architecture, etc) music is the art which is most directly related to mathematics.

This is not to say that the other arts, like architecture (which is obviously related directly to Geometry) are not related to mathematics. I am merely asserting that music is the art most directly related to mathematics. The very sounds that produce music are all products of various mathematical ratios, like the octave and the fifth, as the immortal Pythagoras discovered. And of course, tempo and rhythm are obviously governed by mathematical principles as well.

Image result for pythagoras

The fact that music is the most imitative of the mathematical order that reason knows, is certainly a reason why music is the only fine art that made its way into the sacred seven liberal arts of the quadrivium and the Trivium.

Now Mathematics itself is a beginning part of philosophy and the study of mathematics is necessary for anyone who wants to pursue philosophy.

But the point here is that Music is a work or discovery of man’s reason about the order in the world (i.e. particularly about the order that is found in man’s soul with regard to his passions).

This is also, loosely speaking  a definition of philosophy. Philosophy, if nothing else, is a work of man’s reason in its attempt to know the various orders that are found in the world.

So – and again not trying to be too strict here – the last two sentences amount to two premises in a syllogism the result of which is that

Philosophy is Music or  Music is Philosophy.

But the art of music does not really know the order that it imitates. Imitation is, broadly speaking, a sort of knowing – but it is not knowing in the strict sense of knowing. So given the fact that philosophy aims at really knowing we might say that Philosophy is better than music in this regard – and perhaps even say that “Philosophy is the best music.”

And whereas Music attempts to imitate the passions individually as they exist in the souls of men, philosophy attempts to know the passions simply. Philosophy knows what the passions are with precision and it knows their excesses and defects. And finally philosophy knows how many passions there are and how they relate to one another as well as how the passions relate to man himself and his final end.

Therefore we might agree with Socrates that Philosophy is Music and it might very well be figured under the name of music especially if we call philosophy the best and most noble music.

That is the first reason but I like the next two reasons even more!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment