The Traumatic Kernel of the Pomona/CMC Rivalry

By Patrick Atwater | April 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm | Opinion | 14 comments | |

 

So the other day I saw this flyer in the dining hall. It was for a talk at Pomona, and as is so often the case, the thing had already expired… lucky for me, however, “Hellfire Nation” was just the third lecture in a longer series.

“Truth, Justice, and the American Way,” it’s called. Cue the choir of angels to herald the incarnation of immaculate truth. Because that’s the point of a series like this (at a school like that), right? It’s intellectualism for its own sake—too self-absorbed and broadly-construed to yield any real insight. Like Civ. 10 without cynicism, or the Gov. department without Pitney.

Click to see how you too can learn about "Truth, Justice, and the American Way"

Click to see how you too can learn about "Truth, Justice, and the American Way"

It’s easy to pass judgment as a CMCer. For us well-wielded intellectualism affords more than just mental masturbation. It becomes something practical– a means to a desired end. We don’t study economics for the sake of knowing economics; we do it because we want to make sick cash (not that there’s anything wrong with that). We don’t study political science – the theory and study of how things operate – but rather government: how shit goes down in Washington. I am reminded of a question raised when Ronald Graham, a mathematician, came to the Ath this last Tuesday and gave a talk on non-computable outstanding problems in mathematics: (paraphrasing) “This is all very interesting and fun… But how is this practical?”

I actually disagree with the question itself. But I do agree with its sentiment and the central tenet of CMC: a liberal arts education is too valuable not to be practical. I believe ideas have meaning only insofar as they help us to live our lives better–collectively and individually.

Yet if pure mathematics is fun, how is it not practical? On the wall of the math commons room, JH Poincare is quoted as saying, “The mathematician does not study pure mathematics because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it and he delights in it because it is beautiful.” That seems to reduce mathematics to aesthetics: pretty yes, but not really necessary. So why then do we as humans feel a need, a drive to answer these questions? It’s hard to believe that Andrew Wiles spent seven years of his life in an attic proving Fermat’s Last Theorem because it’d look nice when it was all done up on the board.

Man is a curious animal. That’s why our Professor/Politico Jack Pitney end each of his classes with a quote from A Man for All Seasons: “God made the angels to show Him splendor, as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind.” While we act, we must also ponder, explore, and discuss. I think that we CMCers are too quick to dismiss abstraction and purely intellectual pursuits as impractical. A half empty Athenaeum when one of the greatest living mathematicians comes to speak says to me that we’ve chosen against those pursuits. I think that’s the wrong choice, especially when I see the childlike wonder in the eyes of so many when they actually try to grapple with the pure mathematics just like Graham’s demonstrations.

My point is not simply a cry for more interest in pure mathematics. Rather I think that here at CMC we are too quick to classify the “non-practical” disciplines (literature, philosophy, art, etc.) as just that. I think we’re too critical of non-empirical ideas and too ready to dismiss what hasn’t been socially-edified as practical. When we scoff at Philosophy or Literature or Psychology (actually here we should) majors, I think we run the risk of missing a valuable if not indispensable part of life. If we care about the big questions in life, we do we dismiss some of the methods of elucidating them? Despite it’s cataclysmic failure, I don’t think anyone truly disagreed with the sentiment behind Civ. Thinking critically about how to live, about what is justice, wouldn’t be just a study of “feelings.” Literature isn’t just refined story time so that we learn how to pass the hours. It provides an indispensable pool into which we can peer and gaze at the reflection of our own lives.

Big questions and inquiries are immutable and necessary facets of our lives. To ignore or dismiss them as impractical is the height of folly. If we care about our lives, we need to stop so cavalierly imposing artificial distinctions like practical and impractical in what we study. That is not to say that we should to study all areas equally—no discipline relativism here. But if pure mathematics or whatever helps us to cope with existence—help us to find it “fun” or “beautiful”—then I ask, how could it be any more practical?

More posts by Patrick Atwater »
Patrick Atwater

Patrick Atwater is a senior at Claremont McKenna College, pursuing a dual degree in Mathematics and Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE). When not playing football or slaving away at the Rose, he spends his time theorizing about the California Dream, which Abhi is foolish enough to pay him for. He enjoys theoretical politics, skiing, Russian literature, genuine people, not swimming back, happiness, the outdoors, Michael Bay movies, trying new things, island paradises, the works of Amartya Sen, traveling, and making gross overgeneralizations.

 
 
 
 
  • Economics Major

    Is the main point of this piece that CMCers spend too much time worrying about what’s practical and what’s not, or is there something new you’re trying to say? What would you suggest we do?

    Good post otherwise, I just don’t know if there’s something I’m missing.

  • Economics Major

    Is the main point of this piece that CMCers spend too much time worrying about what’s practical and what’s not, or is there something new you’re trying to say? What would you suggest we do?

    Good post otherwise, I just don’t know if there’s something I’m missing.

  • Patrick Atwater

    I would say that in our blind pursuit of “practicality,” we end up defining what is practical too narrowly and in the process miss what truly is practical. I hope that helps.

  • Patrick Atwater

    I would say that in our blind pursuit of “practicality,” we end up defining what is practical too narrowly and in the process miss what truly is practical. I hope that helps.

  • Cara Daley

    Great article. As a Gov/Art History major, I definitely get this flack out of CMCers a lot. I can understand them, but what you wrote explains my sentiment and intent with my studies better than I ever could.

  • Sara Roberson

    I appreciate this, and find it quite thoughtful. Thanks for writing something of value, Patrick.

  • Sara Roberson

    I appreciate this, and find it quite thoughtful. Thanks for writing something of value, Patrick.

  • Athenaeum Stranger

    I like this piece quite a bit. Discovering how we can be happy is the highest and most important task of education. Such an inquiry, if done properly, will demand that we study the deepest reflections and questions raised in philosophy and poetry. It demands that we see human excellence for what it is, and that we only see human mediocrity in this light, rather than the other way around.

    True, these questions inevitably lead us to ask about the very ground of being. Is nature (and our nature) essentially mysterious or evolving, or is it rationally intelligible? Perhaps Thomas More’s quote from A Man for All Seasons can help us. His position is basically Platonic: man’s natural capacities are most fully exhibited “wittingly, in the tangle of his mind.”

    But if man’s highest nature is rational, as I suspect it is, then we are pushed to discover more about ourselves if we want to know what is rationally intelligible. When we assert that understanding is better than ignorance, we are asserting something about what is good. To know what is good for us, we need self-knowledge. So when we look into the questions our mind entertains, we discover that the most pressing questions are political: What is good? What is just? What is noble?

    Thus I commend your dismissal of “discipline relativism,” but I wonder if you should more firmly consider whether our deepest intellectual pursuits begin at the moral-political level. It’s hard to see why the perfection of human nature revolves around us knowing the average length of a flee, for instance. Likewise, discreet mathematics might discover beautiful patterns, but it seems oddly beyond the realm of the human concerns. (And yes, other disciplines simply miss the human entirely by trying to reduce how we experience the world to materialistic causes or subrational characteristics. These fields, like the behavioral science, rightly deserve our derision.)

    The questions about why study math or science in the first place always bring us back to the question of what is good, which is the first question for us as humans. Insofar as intellectual pursuits have merit then, the should be able to shed light on and account for what is good for us humans.

    But this quest can be solitary, and it can unsettle shared beliefs necessary for the preservation of society and the moral conditions that allow us to pursue education in the first place. So what is good for a “human being” and what is good for a “citizen” (a distinction drawn in the Apology of Socrates) may always be somewhat in conflict. If philosophical pursuits are ever to justify themselves before the political body and its citizens, they must be able to show how they can benefit other citizens rather than harm them.

    Thus I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss those who ask whether what you study is practical. True, in the greatest sense it might be practical, but when it comes to daily life they may have a point. The task serious thinkers have is showing how what they study offers the greatest benefit to human beings. Likewise, they are irresponsible if they aren’t able to defend the political conditions and virtues that allow them to study their philosophic questions.

    Most college students, enlightened as they are, broadly reject the possibility and the usefulness of studying human nature and nature more generally. This recognition should moderate our hopes for bringing knowledge down to the many. For most people, learning to be a good and productive citizen (which itself displays rational excellence), is the highest we can hope for. Serious thinkers then, should not disdain an education that defends good citizenship, noble statesmanship, and the rule of just laws.

  • Athenaeum Stranger

    I like this piece quite a bit. Discovering how we can be happy is the highest and most important task of education. Such an inquiry, if done properly, will demand that we study the deepest reflections and questions raised in philosophy and poetry. It demands that we see human excellence for what it is, and that we only see human mediocrity in this light, rather than the other way around.

    True, these questions inevitably lead us to ask about the very ground of being. Is nature (and our nature) essentially mysterious or evolving, or is it rationally intelligible? Perhaps Thomas More’s quote from A Man for All Seasons can help us. His position is basically Platonic: man’s natural capacities are most fully exhibited “wittingly, in the tangle of his mind.”

    But if man’s highest nature is rational, as I suspect it is, then we are pushed to discover more about ourselves if we want to know what is rationally intelligible. When we assert that understanding is better than ignorance, we are asserting something about what is good. To know what is good for us, we need self-knowledge. So when we look into the questions our mind entertains, we discover that the most pressing questions are political: What is good? What is just? What is noble?

    Thus I commend your dismissal of “discipline relativism,” but I wonder if you should more firmly consider whether our deepest intellectual pursuits begin at the moral-political level. It’s hard to see why the perfection of human nature revolves around us knowing the average length of a flee, for instance. Likewise, discreet mathematics might discover beautiful patterns, but it seems oddly beyond the realm of the human concerns. (And yes, other disciplines simply miss the human entirely by trying to reduce how we experience the world to materialistic causes or subrational characteristics. These fields, like the behavioral science, rightly deserve our derision.)

    The questions about why study math or science in the first place always bring us back to the question of what is good, which is the first question for us as humans. Insofar as intellectual pursuits have merit then, the should be able to shed light on and account for what is good for us humans.

    But this quest can be solitary, and it can unsettle shared beliefs necessary for the preservation of society and the moral conditions that allow us to pursue education in the first place. So what is good for a “human being” and what is good for a “citizen” (a distinction drawn in the Apology of Socrates) may always be somewhat in conflict. If philosophical pursuits are ever to justify themselves before the political body and its citizens, they must be able to show how they can benefit other citizens rather than harm them.

    Thus I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss those who ask whether what you study is practical. True, in the greatest sense it might be practical, but when it comes to daily life they may have a point. The task serious thinkers have is showing how what they study offers the greatest benefit to human beings. Likewise, they are irresponsible if they aren’t able to defend the political conditions and virtues that allow them to study their philosophic questions.

    Most college students, enlightened as they are, broadly reject the possibility and the usefulness of studying human nature and nature more generally. This recognition should moderate our hopes for bringing knowledge down to the many. For most people, learning to be a good and productive citizen (which itself displays rational excellence), is the highest we can hope for. Serious thinkers then, should not disdain an education that defends good citizenship, noble statesmanship, and the rule of just laws.

  • Dan

    Patrick, thanks for responding. I mean, I guess I obviously disagree that the pettiness is worse than not knowing about many of the things Charles informs us of. Your first point is fair enough. Your piece isn’t about politics, but it is an opinion about how things ought to be around here. So its political only in a certain sense, just like Charles and Michelle’s dispute is political in a certain sense. On the second point, I’d just say that most of the people who are less active are seniors. We still have respect for our publications and help them when we can. But true, we have other priorities, and winning hearts and minds is not top on the list. For instance, I have to finish my thesis, and apparently everyone and their dog is cheering me on!

  • Dan

    Patrick, thanks for responding. I mean, I guess I obviously disagree that the pettiness is worse than not knowing about many of the things Charles informs us of. Your first point is fair enough. Your piece isn’t about politics, but it is an opinion about how things ought to be around here. So its political only in a certain sense, just like Charles and Michelle’s dispute is political in a certain sense. On the second point, I’d just say that most of the people who are less active are seniors. We still have respect for our publications and help them when we can. But true, we have other priorities, and winning hearts and minds is not top on the list. For instance, I have to finish my thesis, and apparently everyone and their dog is cheering me on!

  • Pingback: The Forum Endorses Burning in China | The Forum

  • Joshua Redel

    I went to that speech. It was fantastic. And practical. I think CMC students fail to understand the practicality of some pomona students and classes. I’ve found that Pomona classes can be just as practical, and CMC classes just as theoretical (coughalleconclassesherecough) as you want them to be.

  • Joshua Redel

    I went to that speech. It was fantastic. And practical. I think CMC students fail to understand the practicality of some pomona students and classes. I’ve found that Pomona classes can be just as practical, and CMC classes just as theoretical (coughalleconclassesherecough) as you want them to be.