Three Random Thoughts

I recently finished an essay on why the classics matter and why they should be read.  Hmmm......  First, what and who determines a classic?  We, like in all we do, throw the word around carelessly.  "A classic car," "a classic game," "a classic television show," etc.  Ha!  Must a classic be old, like the writings of Thucydides or Marcus Aurelius?  Can they be a bit more modern, such as Rousseau or Stendahl? Is something by Dostoevsky a classic?  Everything he wrote?  If not, why some and why not others?  Can we include non-Western works such as Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe? Do the classics offer us things that are more valuable, more useful than more modern (although still "serious") works, both nonfiction and fiction?  Can the novels of, say, Chaim Potok teach us as much, if not more, than the writings of Maimonides?   In taking wine tours, I've heard many guides and even wine-masters say, "Drink what you like.  The best wines are the ones you like."  Are books like that, that "classics" are the books we like? I re-read, for the umpteenth time, the chapter on creating a physics lesson plan by my physics professor (Professor Romer) in the book, Teaching:  What We Do.  Many times I've said and written that this book of thirteen essays by Amherst professors (many of whom were my teachers) should be required reading for all teachers; I'd even submit it's far more valuable than student teaching.  Professor Romer was also a graduate of Amherst, where his father taught, too.  His liberal arts background was apparent in his skilled writing, his references to art and poetry, for instance, in helping to explain physics.  It is a testament to the value of this "dead-end" degree, liberal arts.  These essays by my Amherst professors are more than obliquely critical of standardized tests.  By omitting much of the process that goes into solving physics problems (that is, finding the answers), much of the "pleasure" of physics (and Shakespeare, Ancient History/Ancient Morals, Philosophy and Foreign Languages, and more) is also omitted.  Students learn that the point is to "get the right answer."  This is what Prof Romer did in my physics class.  He showed us, among other important things, how the "problem" should be addressed.  This includes "idealization" of the problem.  In determining the arc of a batted baseball, wind resistance is ignored by physicists, who prefer "idealization."  But Prof Romer admitted, wind resistance isn't ignored by outfielders chasing that fly ball!  "Idealization" is fine to assume a "flat-earth dimension" when tracking the flight of a batted baseball; it's not quite so in the case of ICBMs. A student lucky enough to have had a physics professor who also teaches other, more advanced physics courses, might well go on to continue studying that advanced material his whole life.  That was/is with me and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.  That's one of the topics, along with quantum mechanics, lasers, cathode ray tubes, etc., that we studied in physics.  For instance, I've applied the lessons of Einstein's Special Theory, the concept of reality changing depending on one's frame of reference, one's perspective, in many ways--my writing, my teaching, etc.    I feel extremely fortunate to have had Professor Romer as a teacher and that I am still in touch with him several times a year.  It's interesting that, in retirement, he has taken to writing history!  He's published one book and is in the process of writing another.  We've shared a few ideas, more specifically, I had questions about his studies. And it's so darn cool that he and his wife, Betty, still remember the autographed baseball (signed by all of the Amherst team members in '71) that I gave to their son David (and the other professors' sons) who was a bat boy for our team that year.  When he, the son, moved out of the house permanently after receiving his graduate degree (to Calif I think), in boxing up things to move with him they came upon that ball.  When they told me that story it made me very happy.  David's wife, Christina, was the chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. I wonder if Professor Romer realized how much this history major learned from his physics class. A while back I read Six Encounters with Lincoln by Elizabeth Brown Pryor. It was not the easiest book to read, but it had some good insights and I both learned things from it and have had some thoughts about Lincoln and his times. It is worth reading. Sometimes the author seems to want to be critical of Lincoln--and often is--but always comes back to what a great President and man he was. At times she wants him to be Superman, to fix all the evils of mid-19th Century America. Besides dealing with the Civil War and keeping the Union together, with the complex problems of slavery and emancipation, with a country full of citizens even more divided than they are today, etc., she is disappointed he didn't provide remedies for Indians, lead the fight for political rights for women, etc. I was struck by this, never I guess really considering it. "Abraham Lincoln...was never truly President of the entire United States." And, in fact, he wasn't. Oh, he never accepted that the Southern states had really left the Union, but the reality is that they did. (With this in mind, I am reminded of a panel discussion that included two of the best US historians, Joseph Ellis and Sean Willentz. During the discussion, Willentz made a point. Ellis went quiet, mulling that over, before admitting, "I didn't know that." Wait! Joe Ellis knows everything about early US history...... It was a good lesson for me.) But one of the pitfalls of the book is that the author, in sometimes criticizing Lincoln and his policies, seems to give serious credence to all views. That is, in weighing sides/arguments, she makes a mistake (I think) in giving equal weight to all of them. For instance, she claims that Lincoln always "missed the point" of the South, as if the Southern position of defending and perpetuating slavery was a valid one. That Lincoln didn't accept the institution of slavery, just because it was the Southern position, should not be a criticism of him. He didn't "miss the point," but refused to give legitimacy to it, esp after 1862.