[John Crossett] taught by a method as close to Socratic dialectic as the English language allowed, and he therefore spent a great deal of class time in defining a very few words. In reading the Illiad, for example he would seek to work out with his students the meaning of "anger" or the meaning of "hero." Often, after a couple of weeks, when a teacher in another section of the course would have finished teaching Homer altogether, Crossett's class would still be investigating a single, lonely word. But what an investigation! By his constant questioning he would open up the word and the student would find the whole world inside. In seeking a definition, a student would examine the nature of language, the nature of man, and his own individual nature. He would come to see that words have meanings only if there is a constant and abiding truth, and that human reason is capable of discovering unshakable answers. Crossett rejected the constraints of the syllabus; he did not care whether his class was one week or more behind someone else's...He believed that good teaching always has a moral purpose and that that purpose is achieved when a student learns something true. No method could compare with dialectic for forcing a student's mind to grasp and keep a true idea. (from John Crossett: A Memoir in Hamartia: the concept of error in the western tradition: essays in honor of John M. Crossett)
No comments:
Post a Comment