Aummary of the essay on the ignorance of hearned by haslif
Answers
Answered by
2
Hola ❤❤❤
⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️
Hazlitt argues quite forcefully, using overstatement to pound home his point, that formal education leads to stupidity and ignorance. As he puts it:
Can we wonder at the languor and lassitude which is thus produced by a life of learned sloth and ignorance?
Book learning is not a substitute for experience, he argues. To really gain knowledge, a person needs to get out and engage in life, not just read about it. Women and the uneducated often have more common sense than the university educated because they have had to meet the day-to-day demands of life head on.
Hazlitt refers specifically to the kind of classical education offered to middle and upper class boys and young men of his period, who would spend years learning subjects like Latin and Greek. This, he argued, was impractical and a waste of time. And even subjects like arithmetic and geography were, he contended, taught in the worst possible way:
Memory (and that of the lowest kind) is the chief faculty called into play in conning over and repeating lessons by rote in grammar, in languages, in geography, arithmetic, etc.
Rote learning and memorization are unnatural and "what passes for stupidity is much oftener a want of interest" in irrelevant subjects.
Instead of spending time on rote memorization and irrelevant topics, young men would get a better education going out into the world, laboring and experiencing life directly so that they could learn to think for themselves. Hazlitt wrote this essay in 1822, and over time formal education has shifted towards an emphasis on more practical knowledge and developing critical thinking skills.
Hope that helps ✔✔✔
Follow me ❤❤
⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️
Hazlitt argues quite forcefully, using overstatement to pound home his point, that formal education leads to stupidity and ignorance. As he puts it:
Can we wonder at the languor and lassitude which is thus produced by a life of learned sloth and ignorance?
Book learning is not a substitute for experience, he argues. To really gain knowledge, a person needs to get out and engage in life, not just read about it. Women and the uneducated often have more common sense than the university educated because they have had to meet the day-to-day demands of life head on.
Hazlitt refers specifically to the kind of classical education offered to middle and upper class boys and young men of his period, who would spend years learning subjects like Latin and Greek. This, he argued, was impractical and a waste of time. And even subjects like arithmetic and geography were, he contended, taught in the worst possible way:
Memory (and that of the lowest kind) is the chief faculty called into play in conning over and repeating lessons by rote in grammar, in languages, in geography, arithmetic, etc.
Rote learning and memorization are unnatural and "what passes for stupidity is much oftener a want of interest" in irrelevant subjects.
Instead of spending time on rote memorization and irrelevant topics, young men would get a better education going out into the world, laboring and experiencing life directly so that they could learn to think for themselves. Hazlitt wrote this essay in 1822, and over time formal education has shifted towards an emphasis on more practical knowledge and developing critical thinking skills.
Hope that helps ✔✔✔
Follow me ❤❤
Similar questions