[HN Gopher] St. John's Reading List: A Great Books Curriculum ___________________________________________________________________ St. John's Reading List: A Great Books Curriculum Author : Tomte Score : 85 points Date : 2023-02-02 17:38 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sjc.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sjc.edu) | [deleted] | Animats wrote: | It's an interesting approach. They do like the classic sources. | I've at least skimmed more than half of those titles, long after | college. It's amusing that they have students read Pikkety's | "Capital" before Marx's "Capital". | | You don't want to learn geometry from Euclid. You read Euclid | after you already know geometry, to see how he built it up. | Similarly, you don't want to learn calculus from Newton. Or | physics from Aristotle. What you're seeing there is people trying | to figure something out before the tools for the job were | developed. | | There are great papers in engineering, where a theoretical | advance changed the world. They're not well known. These should | be as well known as the "Great Books". | | * Maxwell's paper "On Governors". In a few pages, he invents | feedback control theory. People were building steam engine | governors but didn't understand stability and lag. It's a | milestone in that it's one of the first times abstract math met | practical engineering and the result worked. | | * Shannon's discovery that telephone toll switches could be | reduced from needing O(N^2) relays to O(N log N) was one. | Suddenly, combinatorics went from a useless abstraction to a huge | financial win for AT&T. | | * "Rational Psychrometric Formulae", by Willis Carrier. Least | click-bait title ever. Basis of air conditioning. It's how you | make an air conditioner and control both temperature and humidity | at the cold end, rather than getting cold, humid air out. | | * Von Neumann's Report on the EDVAC. That's better known. It's | how to make a CPU. He got all the basic architecture right, | except for index registers. | thwayunion wrote: | Those are excellent suggestions. I think we are probably at the | point where you could do a Great Books curriculum in Computer | Science. Would be interesting to put together that list: 10-20 | foundational primary texts in Algorithms, Programming/Software | Engineering, Logic, AI, and Computer Architecture. | | But, as you note, it'd probably be a terrible way to _actually | learn_ how to engineer software. More intellectually | satisfying, though :) | | _> It 's amusing that they have students read Pikkety's | "Capital" before Marx's "Capital"._ | | I get why it's amusing, but it also makes sense. Marx's | "Capital" is kind of a beast. Pikkety's is written more-or-less | toward a modern general audience. If I were sequencing these | books in a student's intellectual development, Pikkety | definitely comes before Marx. | transfire wrote: | Highly recommend this school. | sys32768 wrote: | Tried to get my oldest to go here. She reads super fast with | high comprehension and loves to debate, but she's so terrified | of going into debt that she's now in a state college taking | computer science and saying Chat GPT is way more helpful than | her professor for understanding or fixing code. | jdmoreira wrote: | Smart kid. I would even skip the whole state college thing as | soon as she can be dangerous enough to get a job. | yamtaddle wrote: | If it's cheap enough, the paper's worth it just to never | worry about having to explain your lacking a degree. Even | if you rarely actually have to, it's always in the back of | your mind. A potential question that you'll need to be | ready to reframe positively, plus that constant worry that | you're receiving extra scrutiny, just... go away | completely. | | It'll also be very handy if one ever wishes to leave the US | --most countries one might want to live and work in will be | much more likely to let you in with a degree, and | especially a CS degree. | | I went back and finished mine. Removing that stressor from | interviews was worth it, even if that was basically the | only benefit, which it was--nearly all the benefits I can | point to from college came from the humanities degree I | nearly finished, years before completing the CS degree. For | the CS degree, perhaps two or three hours worth of | instruction or material have proven either useful or | edifying since. But, I'm glad to have the paper. | codybontecou wrote: | Huh, this is neat. If you click on a book's subject(s), it will | then take you to the specific topic and a reading list tailored | to it. | | For example, this is their Mathematics reading list: | https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs/undergraduate/subjects.... | tgv wrote: | Except that list is ... eclectic, to put it politely. If you | want to learn maths, I wouldn't recommend Aristotle, Descartes | and Darwin. | | Perhaps I don't understand what "The information presented is | for illustration purposes only and may not reflect the current | reading list" means, and why one would link that page anyway. | thwayunion wrote: | Aristotle is reasonable because (1) logic and (2) it's going | to be a core part of any Great Books curriculum so it's part | of the core as opposed to specifically "mathematics". But if | you're going to read Aristotle and Russell with the | justification "logic", you _must_ include Goedel and Hilbert. | | Agree on Descartes and Darwin, but they're both sort of | canonical in Great Books reading lists. Honestly not sure why | Descartes is considered so important to the history of ideas, | particularly in Mathematics where there are so many other | very worthy minds and texts to study, but _shrugs_. | ticviking wrote: | The Great Books approach involves reading the actual | historical development of a subject and seeing not only what | the state of the art is but how we got from here to there. | spekcular wrote: | I believe the person you're replying to understands that. | The claim is that this approach is really bad way to learn | math. | | As someone who has learned and taught a lot of math, I | agree with that claim. | viscanti wrote: | It appears to be a liberal arts program. Is this | substantially different, with respect to the rigor of | mathematics, than most other comparable programs? They | might cover more calculus (maybe at a theoretical level?) | than most liberal arts programs. | spekcular wrote: | Yes, it is substantially different with respect to | content than standard undergraduate mathematics programs. | It covers a few historically important texts and does not | teach (if those texts are any indication) most of what is | usually taught in an undergraduate math degree. (A poster | above writes: "Freshman math was almost entirely the | study of Euclid and Nicomachus.") | uxp100 wrote: | So this is the books used in an undergraduate liberal | arts degree (your degree is IN liberal arts). These are | the math tagged books in a quirky bachelors in philosophy | degree, essentially. They do not have a math degree (or | any degrees aside from bachelors in liberal arts?). | spekcular wrote: | I see - I understood "liberal arts program" above to mean | a liberal arts college in general (typically offering a | mathematics major). I agree that this reading list is | better suited for something like "history of math for | humanities students." | yamtaddle wrote: | I'd expect the rigor is fine, but the particulars that | are learned differ. | | I doubt the distinction matters at all for the vast | majority of grads, especially ones who don't intend to | become mathematicians. Learning _how to math_ is probably | more important than the specific material, outside a | handful of things. You can pick up the rest as-needed, | and for the vast majority of people, "the rest" that is | in fact _ever_ needed for the entire rest of their lives, | will be very little. Especially if they 're pursuing a | classics-based liberal arts degree. | | I doubt many of their grads are planning to become actual | computer-scientists or mathematicians or mech. engineers | or any of that. Lawyer, maybe doctor, maybe writer, maybe | an ordinary computer programmer, that sort of thing. As | long as you're not _afraid_ of math, you 'll be fine in | any of those not having had a typical PDE class or | whatever. | korse wrote: | Perhaps it is a bad way to learn 'applied math'? Bertrand | Russel might disagree... | macrolocal wrote: | But consider that they include Hardy's "Mendelian | Proportions in a Mixed Population" but not Riemann's "On | the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Foundations of Geometry." | a_techwriter_00 wrote: | St. John's graduate here. It looks like that list includes a | lot of what we read in "lab" class mixed in with what we read | in math class. Freshman math was almost entirely the study of | Euclid and Nicomachus. | voisin wrote: | Can you give your thoughts on the approach at St. John's | and whether you would recommend it? | thebooktocome wrote: | It has been trendy in the last fifty or so years to strip | historical and cultural content from math classes in favor of | rote computation (as the former is easiest to test in a | "standardized" setting), but I'd argue that dehumanizing | mathematics makes it far harder to understand, or indeed even | care about. | | Word problems are the last edifice of natural philosophy in | the high school mathematics curriculum and there's constant | pressure to remove those as well. | aik wrote: | Agreed. The book "A Mathematician's Lament" I found | enlightening on this topic. | yamtaddle wrote: | This coupled with a weird fixation on achieving a | sufficiently "high" level of mathematics, typically without | a strong justification for any non-grad-school-bound | students. Reeks of gate-keeping. I've known multiple people | who've failed to finish a degree solely because of math | classes covering material that they'd almost certainly | never have seen again their entire lives, even if they | achieved a middling-successful career in their desired | field. | | If "thinking mathematically" is the actual, vital part of | that education, for most students, I have some doubts that | a classics-based approach is any worse than the modern | kind. Maybe better, except for a small slice of students | who will continue to engage with advanced mathematics after | they finish undergrad and _do_ need the modern version. | skottk wrote: | We actually read some Descartes in math-- some of the papers | from which we get the term "Cartesian coordinates." What he | does in those papers fascinating, but has very little to do | with the way that we learn and use Cartesian coordinates. | thwayunion wrote: | I went through a great books curriculum (not in math), and... | what a strange list. It reminds me of my primary complaint with | the whole Great Books approach: it's mired in fairly a | ridiculous fetishism of the Greek classics, the Enlightenment | era, the American founding, and the Anglo view of the western | world. This works... well enough... in Philosophy and History | and the like. But it a much larger problem in Mathematics where | the field is essentially unrecognizable from the way it | would've been taught in 1920 or whatever. | | I really like the general ethos approach, but the cultural | baggage grates and for Mathematics in particular leads to odd | selections and a sort of out-of-touch-Oxbridge-retiree-who-was- | already-a-touch-senile-in-1982 understanding of the history of | ideas, tbh. | | The Grundlagenkrise is hardly covered at all, despite having so | many wonderful candidates for short illustrative texts that fit | the Great Books tradition perfectly (none of which were | authored by Russell, although a preference for Russell over | Goedel is hardly surprising given my first paragraph). And the | emphasis on Physics and Natural Philosophy over the development | of the science of computing is a shocking oversight given the | sheer accessibility of Turing's work. I'm honestly not sure | what eg Darwin is doing in this list (despite being a good | candidate any great books curriculum). | | Also, significantly more coverage of the development of | arithemtic in the Arab world and simultaneous developments of | various things in both the Indian subcontinent and in the far | east. The Greek fetishism strikes hard in that first year; no | one born after 1850 needs that much Euclid. | | Where is the development of probability theory? Texts from | Riemann, Boole, Laplace, Fermat, Galois, and especially Euler | seem more important than Bacon or certainly Franklin. | | Etc. | Sevii wrote: | Had a great experience at St. John's. Unfortunately, transferred | to a state engineering school due to financial reasons. | aug_aug wrote: | I look at this list, especially the "Freshman" list, and feel | like public school really let me down, lol. | amykhar wrote: | I love this. Of course I'm reminded of Good Will Hunting and want | to break out my library card and get this expensive education on | a budget. | mistrial9 wrote: | I have read many of these works listed. I don't like this | database-looking list format; too many books there. Some of them | are quite challenging. | | Freshman Reading: Homer - Illyad, Odyssey ... ok! if you read the | Odyssey in your own native language (not greek), you probably | will enjoy it, but how are you going to know about the grand | themes unless someone tells you about it? | | seems sad in a way that these great works are reduced to a list | item | rebolyte wrote: | > how are you going to know about the grand themes unless | someone tells you about it? | | SJC grad here. The Program encourages you to encounter the | works for yourself and see what _you_ think the themes/ideas | are. | | You're lightly discouraged from reading the translator's | preface, since they share their own opinions. Different | students bring different translations of the material, and | additionally the language class that lasts all 4 years of | undergrad is basically asking what translation is, is it | possible. | mistrial9 wrote: | very interesting - thanks for posting that additional angle | daseiner1 wrote: | For most works I've read, classical or otherwise, I'm baffled | that the preface isn't a postscript. | BeFlatXIII wrote: | > how are you going to know about the grand themes unless | someone tells you about it? | | For that matter, St. John's students self-select to be the kind | of students who would appreciate being guided to discover the | major themes. Most other students need to be told them and then | think themes are pretentious puffery because they lack the life | experience to recognize or appreciate them. | karaterobot wrote: | > Freshman Reading: Homer - Illyad, Odyssey ... ok! if you read | the Odyssey in your own native language (not greek), you | probably will enjoy it, but how are you going to know about the | grand themes unless someone tells you about it? | | Isn't there a class instruction, supplementary reading, and | discussion component for these books? I assume so. | | But I think a lot of people -- even freshmen! -- could just | read these books and get something from them anyway. | skottk wrote: | Talking about them in a small class of people who read the | same thing at the same time, led by 1 or 2 professors who are | practiced in _not_ acting like more than advanced students, | is _really_ different from just reading the book. | | I'd read _Pride and Prejudice_ many times before the seminar | on it, and I could not have predicted what other people saw | in the book and wanted to talk about with a pile of postit | notes, a ball of red yarn, and ten hours in front of a big | wall. | readthenotes1 wrote: | Is it better to have read them and missed the themes or not to | have read them at all? | | Background: read both Iliad and odyssey in children's section | of library in the 5th grade. Also read most of one of them in | an honors philosophy class in college. Can't remember which. | Recalled the scene where they were throwing Trojans off the | walls after defeating the city when I made a hard tackle in | rugby, driving my enemy into the ground. | uncletaco wrote: | I stayed at St. John's one summer and I remember they had a | "final" where they had to solve geometric problems by actually | drawing the proofs on a chalk board, shapes and all. I watched | that girl go through the whole process while studying and I was | fascinated. | skottk wrote: | That's what you do literally every day in math - take turns | going to the board and working through proofs. Ptolemy is | Waterloo for anyone who has trouble drawing big circles. | wk_end wrote: | A former partner of mine was a St. John's alum (and champion), so | I heard a lot about and thought a lot about their undergraduate | program. | | Of course this is a wonderful list of brilliant works. I don't | know if reading nothing but primary sources is the most efficient | way to become a critical thinker or knowledgeable (e.g. reading | Euclid might be a treat for those who know geometry, but is it | the ideal way to learn geometry?), but it certainly sounds like a | great way to become cultured and a great way to spend four years, | given the chance. | | My feeling was also that such a heavy emphasis on classical | (Western!) thought and works does its students a bit of a | disservice. This is a little dramatic, but I'd say a very serious | view in the postmodern, post-WWII academy is that the culmination | of 3000 years of Western culture, in the country that was | considered by many to be at the height of Western civilization, | turned out to be the Holocaust, and that so deeply fetishizing | "the canon" is problematic for that reason and others. Without | dismissing the greatness of anything on this list, it's | unfortunate that it's not until the third or fourth years that | you start to see stuff from outside the European tradition, in | very limited numbers, often just as electives. There seems to be | a decent selection of works reckoning with American slavery, | which is good, but if I recall and AFAICT not much about European | colonialism, the Holocaust, CIA-backed coups in South America, | the horrors of Stalinism, rising Asian powers, the postmodern | condition, any post-sexual revolution gender politics...a robust | knowledge of the Greeks is all well and good, but I don't know if | that's enough to be a well-rounded citizen of the world, these | days. | skottk wrote: | The greatest weakness of the school is that the list of works | was compiled in 1922 and has changed only incrementally since. | It's also a great _strength_ of the school, but you could enter | the world in 1988 from SJC knowing absolutely nothing about it. | I'm sure that that's still true now. | yamtaddle wrote: | > There seems to be a decent selection of works reckoning with | American slavery, which is good, but if I recall and AFAICT not | much about European colonialism, the Holocaust, CIA-backed | coups in South America, the horrors of Stalinism, rising Asian | powers, the postmodern condition, any post-sexual revolution | gender politics...a robust knowledge of the Greeks is all well | and good, but I don't know if that's enough to be a well- | rounded citizen of the world, these days. | | Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, most college grads (let alone | non-grads) from traditional programs that weren't poli-sci or | philosophy would receive a better "citizen of the world" | education from reading and understanding the first couple books | of _The Republic_ than they evidently picked up in 17 or more | damn years of formal schooling. | | They could literally exceed all that education in a lazy Sunday | afternoon, because despite all those years they somehow failed | to appreciate _what the questions even are_ and that those | questions aren 't as easy to dismiss as many pop-understandings | and pop-philosophies suggest, so they end up with these | embarrassingly-bad ideas about it (and are often _weirdly_ | confident that they know it all!). | | They're in exactly the same position as the targets of Socrates | "what is justice, actually?" question at the very damn | beginning of the book, thinking they have a simple answer for | the question and that their answer's more-or-less adequate. | That's how far all that education got them. No-where, in other | words. | drstewart wrote: | > There seems to be a decent selection of works reckoning with | American slavery, which is good, but if I recall and AFAICT not | much about European colonialism, the Holocaust, CIA-backed | coups in South America, the horrors of Stalinism, rising Asian | powers, the postmodern condition, any post-sexual revolution | gender politics | | Not much about Japanese horrors in WWII, Chinese imperialism, | Mongol raids, African-originated slave traders, African tribal | genocides, machismo anti-homosexual Latino culture either. | | Just seems you forgot to mention these for some reason. Maybe | because the culmination of 3000 years of Asian, Africa, and | South American history isn't utopia either? | dr_dshiv wrote: | I really disagree with the implication. It's not like Hitler or | the slavers were well read in their Greek philosophy. | Traditionally -- and I hope going into the future -- the | classical works of western civ have been a source of enduring | liberalism. They show the value and meaning of freedom -- and | nuanced, complex, non-black/white thought. | | But of course I'm biased because I'm deeply immersed in the | classics--and I draw from it regularly. I find it troubling | that people feel comfortable portraying classical civ as Nazi | fodder... | wk_end wrote: | Which "slavers" are you referring to? Almost all of the | American Founding Fathers owned slaves, and they were of | course very familiar with the tradition of liberal thought. | | I can't speak for Hitler's knowledge of the Greeks | specifically, but he was democratically elected by the nation | of Germany, which - like I mentioned - was considered to be | one of the most "civilized" in Europe (and thus the world). | It's easy enough to draw a line from Hegel or Nietzsche - | both on this list - to Nazism, after all. It's even easier to | draw a line from Heidegger to Nazism, and he's also on this | list. | thow4533566 wrote: | Hitler was only sort of democratically elected. He lost the | direct vote for president by a landslide against | Hindenburg. Later, his party became the largest in | parliament though without a majority (37%). He was only | made chancellor after another election were his party lost | ground (33%), through a backroom deal. | | Hitler's highest formal education was finishing secondary | school. | neaden wrote: | That is just how elections work in a parliamentary system | though, it's not unusual to have a ruling party without a | majority of the vote. | thow4533566 wrote: | Not disputing that. It's just important to know the | historical context and not give the wrong impression when | saying "he was democratically elected". He was, in the | sense that in representative democracy a vote for a party | often in fact is a vote for a particular politician. But | he was not in the sense of a direct, personal democratic | election. | | It's also important to be aware that Hitler, at the point | he became chancellor, had already served a prison | sentence for high treason for trying to abolish | parliamentary republic in the Munich putsch. Those were | highly unusual and tumultuous times, after all. | a_techwriter_00 wrote: | You're right, that view is "a little" dramatic. The Holocaust | proposition was maybe more defensible 20 years ago when we | could still look at Third World with rose-colored glasses. | | Nowadays, I think if someone argues along the lines of "3,000 | years of Western culture culminated in the Holocaust," they | should also consider that the same logic leads to "5,000 years | of Chinese culture culminated in the ongoing genocides in | Xinjiang and Tibet" or "1,400 years of Muslim culture | culminated in 9/11" or any number of other such propositions | that I think most thinking people can see are problematic. | Those things happen in spite of, not because of, the broader | cultural/intellectual canons. | tgv wrote: | > a very serious view in the postmodern, post-WWII academy is | | That's just a load of edgy nonsense to get attention. | Unfortunately, it seems to have worked. | daseiner1 wrote: | Which part, exactly, is """edgy"""? | adamsmith143 wrote: | Have always been fascinated by this school, had a hankering to do | to their Graduate program which is a shortened version of their | undergrad Curriculum. | skottk wrote: | Class of '87 here. Most valuable takeaway is that you can read | almost _anything_ directly or in translation. You don't need to | read a summary of Hegel, you can read Hegel. You don't need to | read an article about a Supreme Court case like Marbury v. | Madison, you can read the case itself. | | When you go into technology, you're then willing to dive into the | guts of the actual docs instead of waiting for a book or blog | post about it. Another way it prepares you for tech-- | understanding philosophy is the skill of drawing incredibly fine | distinctions between things. Designing software is also the skill | of drawing incredibly fine distinctions between things. Having | years of experience in arguing these incredibly fine distinctions | was a huge leg up fr me when I was getting started, and remains | useful to this day. | | I think that the careers of my graduating class are primarily in | software, law, academia, and medicine. | | Funny things about it - there are a lot of places where your | undergrad experience just doesn't overlap with that of people who | didn't go there. Everyone studies the same thing at SJC, so if I | meet a Johnny who went there years after me or years before, I | can tell them what I did for my senior thesis and they'll have a | similar reaction - why the hell did you do that? It's also | _extremely_ small, so if they went there during the same years I | did, I almost certainly know them. | | The original-works thing works gangbusters on philosophy, | science, and literature, and breaks down a little in math. You | spend a frustrating amount of time doing Ptolemaic astronomy, | because it's an excellent classical treatment of trigonometry. | You study Newton for calculus, but you don't actually learn | anything that the modern world thinks of as calculus from Newton, | so you study supplemental materials that teach you derivatives | and integrals over algebraic expressions. | | It's culturally pretty liberal on the inside, although it's | bizarrely worshipped by some right-wingers who didn't go there | because of the curriculum's focus on works from the European | tradition. | yamtaddle wrote: | > Most valuable takeaway is that you can read almost _anything_ | directly or in translation. You don't need to read a summary of | Hegel, you can read Hegel. You don't need to read an article | about a Supreme Court case like Marbury v. Madison, you can | read the case itself. | | I think what's under-appreciated is that, a fair amount of the | time, for these sorts of enduring classics, reading the | original is both better and _easier_ than reading later takes | on the same material. If you read the later derivative works | and go back, often you 'll find they've misinterpreted certain | parts in strange ways, or left out things that seem important, | and the original is not-uncommonly also both an easier and more | entertaining read. | skottk wrote: | And that in some cases they assume familiarity with a large | body of knowledge of _other_ people's commentaries on the | works, and in fact, those second-hand sources are what | they're really responding to. | adamgordonbell wrote: | It seems like this kind of program was popular in Canada at some | point. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_programs_in_Canada ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-02 23:00 UTC)