{"id":8,"date":"2018-05-11T11:17:23","date_gmt":"2018-05-11T15:17:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/?p=8"},"modified":"2018-05-12T17:43:56","modified_gmt":"2018-05-12T21:43:56","slug":"what-does-academic-mean","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/2018\/05\/11\/what-does-academic-mean\/","title":{"rendered":"What Does “Academic” Mean?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Pieper asserts that there is continuity between our universities and Plato\u2019s original academy, which is the basic model for our universities.\u00a0 He holds that the intrinsic characteristic of Plato\u2019s school was the philosophical way of looking at the world, and that the defining characteristic of an academic institution is that it is based on philosophy.\u00a0 \u201cA subject of study that has no philosophical orientation is not academic\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As noted in the introduction by J.V Schall, SJ, Pieper does not mean philosophy departments or courses (although these are important) but a philosophical or \u201ctheoretical\u201d way of looking at things with the aim of arriving at the truth in order to practice (or act on) it.\u00a0 He contrasts this with \u201cpractical\u201d or \u201cuseful\u201d knowledge for its own sake.<\/p>\n

Here then is an early answer (recall this was written in 1950) to the frequently identified problem of education as a stepping stone to a career:\u00a0 \u201cwhere practicality is the decisive factor \u2013 the inner core of the academy [is] surrendered\u201d (p.10).\u00a0 Pieper does not deny that universities are \u201cinstitutions of professional training\u201d, but that they are more than that<\/em> (p. 11), and furthermore that the academic (philosophical) training should not be \u201cside by side\u201d with professional\u00a0 training (or that \u201cgeneral courses\u201d should just be added on professional training, p. 16),but that professional training is itself<\/em> academic (p. 13). In encompassing \u201cacademic\u201d and \u201cprofessional\u201d training, Pieper suggests:<\/p>\n

\u201cOf course the professional excellence of the doctor, the scientist and the lawyer is a highly desirable fruit of academic study.\u00a0 But could it not be that such excellence, once it rises above \u2026 purely technical learning, is linked to and conditioned by selfless, purely theoretical and receptive absorption into being\u201d – in the same way that research needs theory to avoid becoming sterile. (p. 13-14).<\/p>\n

The \u201cphilosophical\u201d way of studying a discipline goes beyond practical knowledge into a deeper realm of seeing things in their \u201ctotal reality\u201d \u2013 as \u201cbeing\u201d (p. 14).\u00a0 The freedom from purely \u201cutilitarian goals\u201d is true academic freedom, which is essentially philosophical freedom (p. 15).<\/p>\n

Pieper\u2019s description of \u201cmoving out of our enclosed narrow environment\u201d into this \u201copen universe\u201d seems analogous to Lonergan\u2019s \u201cexpanding horizons\u201d and \u201cconversion\u201d; his description of the experience causing \u201castonishment\u201d recalls Msgr. Liddy\u2019s \u201cStartling Strangeness\u201d.<\/p>\n

Pieper states that the problem of specialization<\/strong> becomes \u201cacceptable\u201d by \u201chaving all disciplines \u2013 even the individual ones \u2026 treated in an academic, and therefore philosophical way\u201d (p. 16)<\/p>\n

Pieper decries the \u201csophist generation of the academy\u201d – simply piling up isolated knowledge and pursuing purely useful ends – as detrimental to academic freedom and an invitation to totalitarianism and producing mere \u201cworkers\u201d.\u00a0 He also notes that sophistry will never accept \u201csacred tradition, based on a message about the world and existence as a whole, from a higher than human source\u201d (p. 28).\u00a0 (Pieper develops the theme of spirituality in the second essay).<\/p>\n

Pieper asks whether the academy should be separate from \u201cthe many\u201d (average people living an everyday life, p. 31).\u00a0 He suggests that although universities should be open to all and not \u201csocially separate\u201d, and that they cannot \u201cignore the world in which ordinary people work and live\u201d, separation is necessary to achieve \u201cthe capacity for reflection, quietness, contemplation and leisure\u201d and see the \u201cempty attractions\u201d of entertainment as \u201cforms of killing time (p.34-5).<\/p>\n

*Note:\u00a0 I earlier wrote a piece on \u201cwhy we don\u2019t ask big questions\u201d and one of my answers was \u201centertainment\u201d!<\/p>\n

The second essay in this book is \u201cOpenness to the totality of things\u201d.<\/p>\n

Pieper speaks of the \u201cexperiences, insights and convictions\u201d incorporated into Western Universities (p. 56-57). An important part of this is a devotion to the whole; the unified totality of things, \u201cuniversality\u201d.\u00a0 He notes that \u201ca truly educated person is one who knows his relationship to the world as a whole\u201d (p.60).<\/p>\n

He agrees that universities are primarily places for the sciences and scientific research and acknowledges the contributions of scientific activity to \u201cobjectivity, rationality and integrity\u201d (p. 65), but as argued in the first essay, a university should go beyond the individual disciplines to focus on \u201cthe totality\u201d \u2013 it should be \u201ca sanctuary\u201d for the discussion of ideas and concepts from \u201cevery conceivable aspect\u201d (p. 66).\u00a0 Philosophy (as a way of thought) is central to this.\u00a0 In contrast to science (this is questionable?!) philosophical questions are endless and sometimes seem (or are) unanswerable, to ignore them is to limit freedom.\u00a0 Also science seeks \u201cprogress\u201d in knowledge, but philosophy seeks \u201cprogress\u201d in understanding<\/strong> (p. 68). Philosophical contemplation has \u201cno practical aspect\u201d; it is \u201cfree, it cannot be taken into service\u201d (p. 69)<\/p>\n

Philosophy needs to be attentive to scientific discovery, but has the responsibility of looking at \u201cthe totality\u201d, an openness to information \u201cno matter what its origin\u201d (p.73). [Pieper does not mention \u2018sacred tradition\u2019 or \u2018revealed truth\u2019 here but it is inferred when he stresses the need for cooperation between science and theology]<\/p>\n

\u201cOnly a theology that does not avoid the inevitable and the uncomfortable confrontation with scientific research is able to understand its own theological task\u201d (p.74)<\/p>\n

Philosophy and theology are not [merely] \u201csubjects\u201d within a university, both have to do with \u201cthe whole of the reality\u201d and should be part of every discipline.\u00a0 Without their unifying aspects there can be no true \u201ccooperation between the disciplines\u201d (p.75).<\/p>\n

Pieper offers what he calls his only \u201cconcrete organizational suggestion\u201d, and it is a critical one:\u00a0 \u201cthere should be room within the structure of the university itself for academic debate which spreads across the disciplines and faculty\u201d \u2013 on what we might call the Big Questions such as \u201cwhat is Truth? (p. 77).\u00a0 He quotes Thomas Aquinas on the \u201cdisputatio<\/em>\u201d being the spirit of the university (p. 77).\u00a0 He is not calling for a literal return to this scholastic tradition, but an openness to discussion of the diversity of knowledge and \u201cmany sided dialog\u201d contributing to the totality of knowledge.<\/p>\n

He notes that \u201cover and above his scientific qualifications [an academic] must be in a position to appreciate the relevance of his specific findings to the broader discussion which concerns the totality, and introduce them \u2026 into that philosophical conversation\u201d (p. 79).\u00a0 He sees that this will meet resistance in modern universities, not from students but the faculty.\u00a0 He relates the apocryphal story of a student who asked a professor for \u201cpersonal convictions\u201d on a seminar question, and was rebuffed with the answer that this \u201cwas not a matter for discussion\u201d as it was part of his \u201cpersonal faith\u201d (p.80).<\/p>\n

Pieper ends with a (perennial) question: how do universities attract [faculty] who are both important scholars and true university teachers (in the sense of openness to the totality of truth).<\/p>\n

Note:\u00a0 this book was comprehensively covered in a faculty retreat led by GEM fellow Dr. Anthony Haynor on February 7, 2018, see https:\/\/www.shu.edu\/news\/heart-of-the-university-faculty-retreat-series-2017-20.cfm<\/a><\/p>\n

Questions<\/h4>\n

How does Pieper\u2019s view of integrating philosophical thought into all disciplines differ from the current concept of \u201cinterdisciplinarity\u201d?\u00a0 Can the two be reconciled?<\/p>\n

His views on integrating philosophical thinking with professional training is extremely relevant today, especially for our \u201cprofessional programs\u201d.\u00a0 But how can this be done effectively?\u00a0 How are we doing it?<\/p>\n

Two of Pieper\u2019s distinctions between philosophy and science are that science is \u201cpractical\u201d and that it does not ask \u201cunanswerable questions\u201d (presumably such as \u201cwhat is the meaning of life?\u201d).\u00a0 Is this true, or is this a narrow conception of science, maybe even a false dichotomy?<\/p>\n

Pieper\u2019s concluding question: how do universities attract [faculty] who are both important scholars and true university teachers?\u00a0 It seems we are increasingly emphasizing and rewarding scholarship rather than teaching (especially the \u201cunified\u201d form of teaching).\u00a0 Is this the wrong direction to take?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pieper, J. (2015).\u00a0What does “academic” mean? : Two essays on the chances of the university today<\/em>. South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine’s Press. (These are translations of lectures originally presented in 1950 and 1963).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":116,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-challenges-in-higher-education"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/116"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":129,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8\/revisions\/129"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}