Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00083)

Dear Anand, friends,

Anand, are you aware that you are arguing with me about statements I did 
not make? I wrote about reading skills among Americans and you negate 
my statement by answering about reading skills world wide. I submit 
that this is not a very effective way to communicate. 
Regarding my statement about students being more motivated to make money 
than learn, your replied:

> Although it is true. This ambition makes them study, read and solve 
> complex problems in science etc. So it is good for them and good for 
> society.
This is a very idealistic view. I wish it were true. It is not 
generally so. Our experience in the university system has been that 
most students try to do whatever needs to be done to get by. When we 
find students who give 100% effort we are very delighted. They are the 
minority. Nevertheless, the subject of the American educational system 
is a very complex one, and too off subject for this discussion board. 
The point I was trying to make was not about the American Education 
system anyway. It is about the declining ability of people to read 
literature, which has effected their ability to read Blavatsky. 
Nineteenth century American and European education focused upon being 
learned in the classics. Education was about understanding culture, 
history, language, philosophy, the arts and humanities. Today's 
universities focus upon specialized training in order to serve corporate 
interests. They learn the skills necessary to become good accountants, 
or dentists, or administrators etc. But they no longer learn the skills 
necessary to read at a sophisticated level.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of this country; author of 
the Declaration of Independence; the Statute of Virginia for Religious 
Freedom; and third President of the United Sates, once wrote to the 
effect that a man is not educated unless he has read the classics in 
their original Greek and Latin. Today, it is very rare to find an 
American (whether or not he/she has been to a university) who has read 
the classics in English translation, let alone in their original 
languages. Today, we call one with a university diploma who has a 
specialized knowledge in a small area and generally ignorant about 
everything else, an "educated" man or woman. In Blavatsky's day, and in 
Jefferson's day, an educated person was one who had a general knowledge 
in all areas: sciences, humanities, mathematics etc.

Let me put it this way: If you were to show a world map to the Average 
American, they would be unable to find India on it. 
Another example: There is a very popular television personality who 
discusses world issues from "a Christian point of view." His views are 
representative of about half of this country. In discussing the issue 
about India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons, he pointed out that the 
governments of India and Pakistan "are too ignorant to understand that 
those weapons are dangerous."

Best wishes,
Jerry.







Anand Gholap wrote:

> Jerry,
>
>
> > What I wrote was that most Americans lack the skills needed to read 
> with 
>
> > much understanding anything written above a fifteen year old 
> level. 
>
> > They are unable to read with much understanding anything but the 
> > simplest writing. What I would suggest is that people would be 
> > generally better off if they were to work on improving their 
> reading and 
>
> > thinking skills. 
> It is not so. Literacy in world is much more than any time before. 
> Also much advanced skills in every area are being acquired by people
>
>
>
> My experience has been that most young people who go to 
>
> > the universities resist learning to read, write or think. They 
> tell me 
>
> > that they are there to get their diploma and get a job that pays a 
> lot 
>
> > of money. 
> Although it is true. This ambition makes them study, read and solve 
> complex problems in science etc. So it is good for them and good for 
> society.
>
>
>
>
> > > Blavatsky failed to write in such manner and she admitted it. 
> > I agree, she did not write in such a manner. But how is this a 
> > failure? 
> Anand Gholap
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links