Posted by Rick Denney on September 07, 2002 at 23:59:47:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should we have to defend teachers? posted by delurked on September 07, 2002 at 23:17:34:
You'll be anti-intellectual again when you have to abandon words like "palpable" and "visceral" because nobody knows what they mean. I had my head handed to me the last time I used "pusillanimous" in public, heh, heh.
I was a college intellectual. But as I get older, I've gotten less intellectual and more interested in wisdom. As a result, I've fallen into the gap between the two--mistrusting the former and unable to attain the latter. I'm told by my elders that I will emerge once I reach the more sober age of 50, but intellectualism has a hard time surviving beyond 40. So, I suppose I have a few more years of doldrums left to endure.
I'm becoming anti-culture, too. It seems to me that most people who adore "culture" adore the idea of culture. Me? I just like music, and sometimes art. It seems that most who seek culture don't find it, but most who just like music find lots to enjoy, and enjoyment is the whole point. Culture is an objective of modern education, and not a love of literature and learning. My use of the word in previous homilies was a feint.
But I'm floored to discover two people who read Morte d'Arthur in high school. In my high school, extra-curricular reading requirements were banned by the school district administration. Why? Because low-income students supposedly couldn't afford the books. Of course, that was a smoke-screen--the real reason was that extra-curricular books hadn't been approved by the education establishment, and therefore weren't sifted through the filter of the world-view they hoped to impose.
As to "the Moon shone clear" being more active, I prefer to measure it by the effect it has on the reader, not by any characteristics attributed to the writing. Those characteristics are hard to define and the descriptions usually mislead those who would emulate the described. That's where palpable and visceral come into play--they describe the effect on the reader. (This was Lewis's point in his experiment.) Frankly, the second phrase doesn't even paint a two-dimensional picture for me that seems more real than a cartoon.
It's okay with me if high-schoolers can't explain why Malory's choice of phrase is the better one--as I said before, there is no right answer. It does matter that they have the encouragement to read such works and the opportunity to love them. If the literature they read is worthy, they will grow to love it. If it is not, they will hate reading and prefer television. See? I don't even blame television.
Of course, literature is only an example. Pick any subject taught in schools and it is the same.
Rick "a ex-intellectual who did not read Morte d'Arther in high school but wishes he had" Denney