Throughout history, men, scientists, philosophers, rhetoricians - women - have posed questions about what we know, how we know, what we need to know, and what we need to teach. Are we born with innate knowledge, or is life a continuous quest for knowledge building upon itself? How and why do we think? The answers to these questions have driven instruction, education, and curricula for centuries and have been largely reactionary to the current trends of the day in which they were posed. As Johanna brought up in class, Giambattista Vico was a humanist who believed we have an innate nature of knowledge. He suggested there are three stages of understanding and three types of knowledge. Maria Teresa Maiullari, in "Giambattista Vico," relates that Vico believed the educator should "be familiar with the natural predisposition of the human soul and must impel the student to develop this familiarity as well" (1). Learning, in other words, must be transformed into knowledge, and language was the mode by which communication and transmission of knowledge occurred. Vico was concerned with the "social and legal ordering" of society (5), but his ideal was the "attainment of an 'eternal natural Republic ordered by Divine Providence'" (3). In this manner, Vico believed there was an order to society and to government. God determined the providential order, but through self-autonomous study, students could learn their place in the hierarchy of social order. Learning and knowledge of all things was a process, and he believed that a well-rounded education included math and science. Vico's concern about the human condition, innate knowledge, and his belief that rhetoric was "a means rather than not an end to knowledge" (5) varied from the traditional modes of thought, education, and discourse that existed before him. He promoted a new way of thinking that was not widely accepted, but would be in time, as a humanistic approach to how we learn. Lester Faigley promotes a new way of thinking as well with regard to visual rhetoric's affect on what we see, what we know, and how we write. Vico might say that the predisposition of the human soul and self-autonomous study lead to our understanding of visual rhetoric.
Like Vico, John Locke had a love of scientific knowledge, but he differed from Vico in his view of knowledge and understanding. As Dawn suggested, Vico was a follower of the nurture rather than nature theory of acquiring knowledge and sharing it through language. Language's purpose, according to Vico, was to share thoughts and ideas as quickly and easily as possible, and to "convey the knowledge of things" (425). He believed we were not born with innate knowledge, and proposed that we acquire knowledge through experience. Experience takes the forms of sensation and reflection. We get our ideas from our five senses, and then we reflect (426). Locke varied from the traditional methods of teaching rhetoric. He questioned whether we should be drawing from canonical "artistic proofs" through use of the topics, or whether new avenues in "inartistic proofs" should be pursued from outside sources (425). Locke moves away from the classical topics and looks toward outside influences for invention.
Despite the centuries between them, Linda Flower and John Locke share similarities in their beliefs about how we learn. Flower is one who delves into cognitive processes and strategic problem-solving approaches to writing. Locke might concur about the ways in which we gain knowledge. Acquiring knowledge through experience is an aspect of cognitive learning. Like Locke, Flower is a proponent of the cognitive aspect of rhetoric.
David Hume influenced the knowledge of the masses through his historical publications, but the writing of history poses a number of problems. In "The Cambridge Companion to Hume," we read that Hume himself wondered "...how could we claim to have first-hand knowledge of the existence of Julius Caesar when the sources we relied on were in fact copies of copies?" (286). When does a primary source become a non-primary source? Do copies of copies besmirch history? What if the original documents have been copied incorrectly, abridged, expanded upon, or taken out of context? As for Hume, could he have, in order to make history more appealing to women, embellished or altered his writing of history to make it more entertaining to them than their "ordinary books of amusement?" (282). A problem with history is the writing of it. One person's view of history and his perspective about what he has seen, influences writing. Hume noted this when he studied ancient civilizations and found that ancient scribes could not have portrayed an accurate representation of society (288). Perspectives can be skewed. Although Hume claimed to record history with impartiality, he also claimed to "support Whigs and Tories alternately" (301). Hume seems to be partial to whatever side he happened upon. His history, therefore, would reflect what he saw from his perspective at a particular time. Might any of us expect that we could ever have a truly impartial, accurate history? Stanley Fish, skeptic that he is, might wonder the same thing. In his August 24 blog, he writes, "...I have no problem with alternative ways of teaching literature or history," and also implies that there is not a canon for teaching history (3). Which is the correct history to teach? The answer to this question, as is the answer to all questions, is dependent on the current trend of the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment