From Paideia to High Culture. Imelda Chlodna-Blach
Читать онлайн книгу.
most significant creation of the sophists is the fully conscious concept of culture per se. It resulted from the Greeks striving for – through poetry and philosophy – the formation of an authoritative ideal model of man.119 It made them realize the deeper meaning of the idea of education. The creation of an abstract concept of culture took place when the subject of the conscious educative work (paideuein) ceased to be solely a child (pais) but it started to be – primarily – an adolescent man, from the moment when people became aware of the fact that there was no definite age limit that, when reached, would stop the inner ←40 | 41→development of an individual. It was the moment when the paidéia of an adult came to existence.120 Therefore, the paidéia proposed by the sophists differed in this aspect from the Greek education model that ended when a lad reached the age of majority. It included everything that positively shaped a human being – a citizen (polites) – for a specific purpose, closely associated with a political activity.121
The sophists put great emphasis on the shaping of man, which underlined any rational organization of life. They attempted to synthetize two opposing models of education: the tradition of the noble nurture (based on the belief in the nobility of blood) and political and democratic concept of bringing up (based on a rationalistic point of view).122 The value of man was no longer constituted by blood inherited from gods since then, but by the human nature subjected to nurture.
The sophists stressed the importance of the question: what is the relationship between the “nature” of man and the possibility of exerting a purposeful impact on it through education? The new concept of man, proposed by them, who was not shaped by nature (physis) or origin in a definite and positive way but by education, was crucial in that context.123
They maintained that nature (physis) constituted the basis on which any education had to be based. Education, however, took place through teaching (didaskalía), learning (máthesis) and by exercise (áskesis), due to which what had been learnt became the second nature. Basing on the medical perception of human nature, they worked out a concept according to which nature constituted the whole composed of a body and soul but a special focus was given to the spiritual organization of man. Protagoras noticed that every individual was subjected to a pedagogical influence from an early age. At school, in turn, a pupil learns by heart the works of good poets and music, which accompanies him when he is reciting the poems of lyrical poets, and gymnastics. When a young man graduates from school and enters the stage of practical life, the proper civic education began. The differences between the old noble paidéia and a new civic education are clearly seen at this point. The entire noble education, starting with Homer, is dominated by the concept of a model.
There were two aspects of paidéa: substantial and formal. In the substantial aspect, the sophists taught what showed man his place in a social group, in polis, ←41 | 42→and, in addition, enabled him to act in a good, fair and beneficial way for polis, and thus for himself: what is the state, law, what are ethical and moral standards, what is their origin, what is the nature of man? In the formal aspect, they taught how to acquire and use knowledge to accomplish a goal being, which, by definition, is the welfare of the polis and one’s own prosperity.124
The following question should be asked: how did the sophists justify the possibility or even the necessity of education? First, by pointing to the necessary assumptions of the state and society (it was about, among other things, the civic education); second, they derived it from political and moral common sense. Protagoras proved that every man was trying to provide his children with possibly the most thorough education and that, in fact, everyone who did not even think about it, provided some education; third, they considered the problem in the context of the relationship between nature and art in general, in particular, the educative art. They pointed to its indispensable role in completing the existing nature. As they emphasized, on the one hand, it was necessary to know the human nature, on the other hand, however, it was important to have the knowledge on the proper methods of “cultivating” it. Moreover, they underlined that “the essential thing is to begin work at the right moment, the most educative moment, which in the human species is childhood, when nature is still pliable, and whatever is learnt is absorbed, easily but permanently, by the soul.’125
The essence of education perceived in this way was explained on the basis of land cultivation as a typical example of perfecting nature due to skilful human practices. Excellent yields can be expected only where the right conditions are met! Even the deficits of the poor nature can be removed at least partially when the suitable cultivation is applied in the form of education and exercise (and therefore the broadly understood culture). On the other hand, even the most beautifully equipped nature will fail if it lacks such cultivation. Aristotle pointed out that art compensated for the deficits of nature.
Over time, the comparison of man with agri cultura entered the permanent set of notions of the Western peoples, creating the basis for a hyperbolic use of that word in the form of cultura animi and for imagining that the indicated education constituted a certain “spirit cultivation.” The etymology of the word “culture” itself points to its close relationship with education.
←42 | 43→
Therefore, it was to the sophists, especially Protagoras, that we owe the association of pedagogy with the philosophy of culture. The idea of man formation is the highest stage of culture – namely, the so-called high culture.
1.4. KALOKAGATHÍA AS THE CROWNING OF ALL VIRTUES
The sophists reinforced the concept of education to culture, which started to be a conscious orientation of a human being towards the defined – universal ideal of man rather than merely a preparation for the profession or forming one social layer within a single nation. The main motif of culture was the perfection of man.
The indicated perfection was defined by the Greek term kalokagathía (beauty-good, nobility, perfection).126 This term is a combination of two words – “beauty” and “good” – kalos kai agathos, the Greeks, however, treated them as one word. This ideal is one of the most specific features of the Greek culture, actually starting with Homer. It was in his works that beauty and good were connected for the first time.127 Later, they could be found in Solon128 and Thucydides.129 However, the complete theory could be observed in Plato and Aristotle. Therefore, the fact regarding the presence of kalokagathía at the dawn of the Greek culture is extremely important as it proves the extraordinary vitality of the word, which the subsequent philosophers tried to explain.130
The Greek term kalokagathía embodied in itself the earlier aristocratic ideal of a gentleman.131 Moreover, in the new political order kalokagathía increasingly defined the old ideal of areté, covering the entire man and all his powers. It was an obliging ideal that fostered imitation.132 It derived from the world of noble ←43 | 44→terms but gradually gained a broader meaning. Finally, it started to be used for defining an ideal of every citizen seeking to attain a higher culture and, finally, the indicated term became a synonym of the “civic virtue.’133
The combination of both beauty and good in one ideal was possible due to a specific, not unambiguous but analogous understanding of both terms. Beauty was better defined by Plato in his Feast where he stated that it was something deserved not only by art but by science and beautiful laws and beautiful behaviour and beautiful bodies and finally the idea itself. Those were the things that the Greeks referred to as beautiful. However, the sense of good was explained by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics: “Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly every action and rational choice, is thought to aim at some good; and so the good has been aptly described as that at which everything aims.’134 Thus, Aristotle claims that it was not connected with morality only since it was the aim of action and production as well as cognition. It was the goal pursued and strived for in various ways. It was not without reason that the Ancients were not satisfied with a mere definition of the “moral good” but they spoke of the “moral beauty.” They were not satisfied with the notion “good” itself since they could find good in other orders as well; the “moral good” was not enough either because there were