cialized, level of “liberal arts” scholarship,rnunless those tools of the modernrnacademic method are firmly based onrnand sustained by the pleasure derivedrnfrom personal enjoyment, the)’ will failrncompletely in the aim of transmitting therntradition. “It was never the plan of thernIHP.” Taylor writes, “to simply teach thernbooks of Western culture, but rather torndiscover the roots of that culture andrngive, to the extent possible, the actual experiencernof that civilization.” His bookrnis an impressive attempt at tracing thernidea of poetic knowledge in the Westernrntradition. Along the way, Taylor investigatesrnthe reasons for the concepf s virtualrndemise in Western educational theoryrnand considers the prospects for its revival,rnwhich do not appear to be promising.rnTaylor argues persuasively that, the traditionrnof poetic knowledge having beenrnlost in the post-Cartesian era, what isrnknown as a “liberal arts” education —rnto the extent that it survives at all —isrnincreasinglv regarded as just one specializedrnfield of education among manyrnothers: a practical preparation for an academicrn”career” rather than the essentialrnbedrock underlying Western citizenshiprnand a vital link to a living cultural tiadition.rnAs Dennis Quinn observed.rnThe humanities have been professionalizedrnand scientized to thernpoint where the ordinary undergraduaternwith a budding love forrnpoetn,’ or history or art or philosophvrnfinds his affection returned inrnthe form of footnotes, research projects,rnbibliographies, and scholarlyrnjargon—all the poisonous paraphernaliarnthat murders to dissect.rnTaylor’s book is most useful for its examinationrnof how the tradition ofrnforming students’ minds by communicatingrn”the actual experience of civilization,”rnor “poetic knowledge,” has beenrnlost in the theory and practice of education.rnThe experiential mode of teachingrnwas strongly present from the time of thernancient Greeks through the late scholastics,rnconstituting an essential part ofrnthe standard curriculum in Europeanrnschools as late as the Reformation. It wasrnonly with Descartes’ establishment of thernscientific method of systematic doubt asrnthe way to sure knowledge that the classicalrnnotion of learning in the “poeticrnmode” began to be neglected. Since poeticrnknowledge entails direct experiencernof real and objective essences outside thernmind, and the mind’s intuitive identificationrnwith those essences, it was attackedrnfor being empirically disprovable,rnhence invalid. The exaltation of the experientialrnmode of knowing in the Romanticrnera proved a short-lived reactionrnto the hegemony of the scientific mode,rnwhile in the modern era John Dewey,rnmore than anyone else, is responsible forrnthe triumph of the systematized and sterilernapproach to learning that dominatesrnAmerican education today.rnTaylor and the school of poetic knowledgernhe defends seem to be right on thernmoney in their identification of what isrnwrong with our current system of educationrnand why it achieves such dismal results,rnparticularly in the all-importantrntask of transmitting what remains of ourrncultural tradition. A large part of thernabysmal and demonstiable failure of ourrnschools and universities to capture the attention,rnimagination, and energy of studentsrntoday is the remoteness of the subjectsrnthey encounter—and the way inrnwhich those subjects are taught—fromrnthe love of knowledge for its own sakernand the enthusiasm that accompaniesrnthe thrill of enjoying the beautiful, makingrnstudy mere drudgery to be borne forrnthe sake of the utilitarian, careerist endsrnit serves. Unsurprisingly, the reaction ofrnyoung people, most of whom have no intentionrnof entering into academic life, tornsuch an atmosphere is the determinationrnto escape it as soon as possible and get onrnwith the business of living—an urge directiyrncomparable to the desire to escapernthe drudgery of sweatshop labor held byrntheir counterparts in a previous age.rnWhile Taylor’s conclusions regardingrnthe weaknesses of the modern educationalrnsystem are sound, some of the anti-rnmodernism inherent in the IHP philosophyrnhe champions is questionable.rnContrary to the contentions of Taylorrnand Senior, the specialization of professionalrnlife and technological developmentrndoes not necessarily preclude therncultivation of a sense of wonder inrnleisurely contemplation of reality. Onerncould reasonably argue, indeed, that itrnmakes contemplation possible for arngreater number of people than ever beforernin history. And while the conditionsrnof modern life work against the contemplativernattitude necessan- for learning inrnthe poetic mode, this simply makes thernproject of restoring that essential aspectrnof any curriculum more important.rnFurther, the most promising developmentrnof recent times for those whornmaintain the primary place of poeticrnknowledge is the rapid growth of hoirieschooling.rnIn the home, away from thernscientific model that permeates ourrnDeweyized, politically correct classrooms,rnyoung children can experiencernthe thrill and wonder of discovering ourrncommon cultural heritage in the companyrnand under the direction of the personsrnbest situated to devote themselves wholeheartedlyrnto their development.rnA video of the famous debate betweenrnThomas Fleming and Glen ThurowrnLincoln: Tyrant or Liberator?rnThe Bradford Debate SeriesrnSend S19.95 + $3.00 S/H to:rnThe Confederate Shoppern928 Delcris DrivernBirmingham, AL 35226rnTel: (205) 942-8978rnFax: (205) 942-7881rnwww.pointsouth.com/c-shoppe.htmrnlsl|EISIBMBlBIBBIB3JBlBIEIBlBEMBMBJBJBM3JBfBJBBIB1313M@JB15JBEMBMBIBJlBrnNOVEMBER 1998/27rnrnrn