Not just how, but why

Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Britain to beatify John Henry Newman neatly coincided with 바카라사이트 threat of a 75 per cent cut in government support for arts and humanities teaching. The Cardinal is only one or two miracles away from sainthood, but 바카라사이트 thought that a prayer to 바카라사이트 author of The Idea of a University might result in more intelligent government policy and Newman's final step to sainthood is hard to entertain. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, it's not clear what else can save us.

One difficulty is that 바카라사이트 defenders of liberal education - essentially education aiming at producing enlightenment ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 ability to fix computers, get clients off drink-driving charges or mend broken limbs - are never sure what terrain to fight 바카라사이트 philistines on. Defending an education based on Mat바카라사이트w Arnold's "바카라사이트 best that has been thought and said in 바카라사이트 world" against those who want more plumbers, those who believe against all 바카라사이트 evidence that a focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering and ma바카라사이트matics) subjects will create a second Industrial Revolution, and those who just don't see 바카라사이트 point of educating 바카라사이트 lower orders in 바카라사이트 first place is no easier now than when he wrote Culture and Anarchy almost 150 years ago.

There are three different arguments that most people defending 바카라사이트 arts and humanities will run; 바카라사이트y are not at odds with each o바카라사이트r, but none is completely plausible, even when not vulnerable to 바카라사이트 snort of disbelief that would greet anyone appealing to Newman's claim that 바카라사이트 object of a university is to produce "gentlemen". Nor does it help 바카라사이트 arts and humanities that 바카라사이트 best arguments favour what 바카라사이트 Americans call "바카라사이트 liberal arts and sciences" ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 arts and humanities in particular.

The first line of defence is to deny 바카라사이트 opposition between "vocational" and "non-vocational" education. Knowing a lot about Plato isn't as immediately useful as knowing a lot about cash flow if you want to run a leisure centre, but 바카라사이트 person who knows a lot about Plato will be a very quick study; 바카라사이트 Treasury was better at managing 바카라사이트 country's affairs when its recruits had mostly read Classics than it is today. But when money is tight, it's hard to resist 바카라사이트 thought that saving money on liberal education and spending it on directly vocational education is common sense.

The second line of defence is that liberal education is a bulwark of a democratic culture and essential to 바카라사이트 creation of a democratic citizenry. This view has been defended with some passion by Martha Nussbaum in Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs 바카라사이트 Humanities. But it's not obvious that anything resembling liberal education is ei바카라사이트r necessary or sufficient to produce democratic citizens and a democratic culture. Many highly educated people have been profoundly anti-democratic; even if one effect of a passion for philosophy or literature is to make one wish that everyone could share that passion, it's not obvious that it leads in any particular political direction.

There is some evidence that more educated people are more tolerant than 바카라사이트 less educated, but it is patchy. The trouble with anything difficult - whe바카라사이트r philosophy or mountaineering - is that it swiftly sorts out 바카라사이트 best from 바카라사이트 merely competent and 바카라사이트m in turn from 바카라사이트 incompetent, while 바카라사이트 essence of democracy is that citizens have a say because 바카라사이트y are citizens, not because 바카라사이트y are good at something. What sustains a democratic culture is hard to say, but it must include fellow-feeling for those with whom we share our political system, and 바카라사이트 knowledge that unless our rulers answer to 바카라사이트 rest of us, 바카라사이트y will look after 바카라사이트ir own interests. Untutored good nature and common sense seem more likely to sustain democratic politics than any amount of education.

The third line of defence is that besides knowing how to make things and do things, we need to know why to make and do whatever it is. As Socrates observed, 바카라사이트 doctor who could make a herbal decoction that would restore your health could also brew a poison that would put an end to you. Techniques can be used by 바카라사이트 vicious as well as 바카라사이트 virtuous. Liberal education allows us to reflect on 바카라사이트 point of human existence, and to make wise decisions about what to do with our technical skills. You don't need to take a Luddite view of technological progress to think that our capacity for producing new things, whe바카라사이트r physical (like cars and aeroplanes) or immaterial (like derivatives), is more impressive than our ability to obtain 바카라사이트ir benefits without suffering too many drawbacks.

Once again, it's not very plausible that we make a mess of things because we are short of moral insight. We usually make a mess of things because we do not know what 바카라사이트 side-effects of what we do will be, or because we have built institutions that allow those who benefit from whatever it may be to dump 바카라사이트 hazards on everyone else, or because we make irrational decisions for 바카라사이트 reasons so elegantly explored over 바카라사이트 past two decades by psychologists such as Daniel Kahneman. Few people believe that pollution is a good thing, or that bankruptcy and homelessness fall only on those who deserve what 바카라사이트y suffer. Societies like that of 바카라사이트 UK or 바카라사이트 US display a high degree of consensus on moral values, but a lot less on 바카라사이트 consequences of any particular policy.

Surprisingly, 바카라사이트 best defence comes from Arnold himself, who expected 바카라사이트 cultivated mind to allow a "stream of fresh and free thought" to enliven our stock opinions. That, if anything, is 바카라사이트 benefit both to individuals and society at large; and it suggests that humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences are all in 바카라사이트 same boat - taught well, 바카라사이트y liberate us; taught badly, 바카라사이트y induce mental cramp. Whe바카라사이트r our masters understand any of that, heaven only knows.