"Because of Latin and Greek, I am a better person"

[Jona Lendering]

"Because of Latin and Greek, I am a better person": I am afraid the author is serious. Why are classicists always making exaggerated claims about their own importance? Ancient history is interesting - how come that that is never enough?

[Ron Andrea]

Yes, he seems to be serious. I'm sure a serious study of the classics is good for you, providing you doing take yourself to seriously. :wink:

[Phaichtos]

Well honestly, I think he has a few good points, some of which are echoed in Victor Davis Hanson's "Who Killed Homer?". I suspect though that if put alone in a room with either of these guys, I'd probably go insane

I think people who are in a sort of "niche" role--whatever form that may take--tend to have an exaggerated impression of their own importance, and classicists are no different. But whereas guys like Hanson will argue ad nauseam about the pointlessness of programs such as "womens studies" which, the argument goes, should be spread between history and sociology, an anti-classics person could make exactly the same assertion about a school's classics department: why have one dedicated to just that, when you can learn "the same stuff" from the literature and history departments?

Mind you, I say all this as someone double majoring in history and classics myself :wink: And like I said, I do agree with a few of that guy's points, especially regarding things like how the classics make you better at English. I started doing Latin in high school and although I was lucky enough to have a middle school teacher who was hellbent on teaching all of us the grammar of the English language, I definitely got much more of a "feel" for our own mother tongue when I began to learn Latin. It is hard to think of seemingly arcane concepts like grammatical cases for a language you already think in, so doing it artificially through Latin really helped me to gain much more of a grasp on how language in general works, not just English. Also, I can use bigger words too because so many of them come from Latin as well.

[Astiryu1]

I want to learn the Greek and Latin languages so I can read directly from the source. This does not prevent me from speaking in simple terms so a person that does not understand the language can still understand me. I run into this problem with friends mostly so just explaining things in simple terms I find useful too!

[Jona Lendering]

I do agree with a few of that guy's points, especially regarding things like how the classics make you better at English.

You might have achieved the same by learning, say, Spanish, which has the additional benefit that you can actually make yourself understood in quite a lot of countries... I sincerely regret learning Latin and Greek instead of modern languages.

To be fair, I do like ancient history, but I will never make special claims about its use or meaning - and will certainly never claim to be a better person.

[Phaichtos]

I do agree with a few of that guy's points, especially regarding things like how the classics make you better at English.

You might have achieved the same by learning, say, Spanish, which has the additional benefit that you can actually make yourself understood in quite a lot of countries... I sincerely regret learning Latin and Greek instead of modern languages.

Perhaps, although I have to say that at least at my university, even the professors of the modern languages have a somewhat "iffy" grasp of the grammar, and are more interested in word of mouth communication than actual knowledge. Don't get me wrong, that is obviously what language is all about and it helps to be able to SPEAK a language with someone else. But I still think there's something to be said for learning Greek and Latin.

Also, after you get Latin especially, the other Romance languages suddenly get a lot easier to pick up!

[Jona Lendering]

even the professors of the modern languages have a somewhat "iffy" grasp of the grammar

Isn't it that they are interested in different types of grammar? (I am not sure; I only know that since Chomsky, several new types of linguistic analysis have been developed.)

Also, after you get Latin especially, the other Romance languages suddenly get a lot easier to pick up!

You might have obtained the same result by learning, say, Italian. After that, French and Spanish become easier. At least, that's what I think.

[Astiryu1]

Reading directly from the sources is something I envy. Everything I think I know is third hand as opposed to second. :wink:

[Doc]

Jona,

I am not sure what adversity you have to the classics or maybe the way you explain yourself appears to show adversity. However, I do not see anything terribly wrong with giving classic languages some importance. No one forced you to learn Latin and Greek nor were you forced not to learn other languages. If you really want to learn something else, you should be able to do it-no? I for one speak Italian and studied French. I wish I had learned Latin and will do shortly simply because as an Italian, I think that I should know roots of my language.

As far as your language statement that French comes easier if you learn Italian is only true if you are born in Italy or live in Italy and practice the language regularly. Any average college course in languages for a few semesters is not going to provide a deep enough understanding that will make the subtle and sometimes stark difference between the romance languages simpler to learn.

French for me was not a problem since I was born in Italy and constantly practiced Italian even when I moved to the States at a young age. When I went to high school and took French, it was a joke. That will not be so for people just born in the States where the requirement is English and American English at that. For people in the States, a language such as Italian would be learned as a language requirement for college credit. Those who learn it becasue it is of interest would have to teach it constantly or go to Italy for visits be they professional or pleasure. If you live somewhere in Nebraska, even if Italian is learned, it will be of no use. What % of the population is Italian in Nebraska or elsewhere in the States other than NY.

I think that learning classics does make you a more cultured person because it allows a perception of the world from a different view point or a point of understanding instead of just knowing that something is because it was taught that way. I state it as an opinion however it should be more of a fact. A person who has had just basic courses in various subjects can just repeat a list of things like a parrot without knowing is roots or point of birth and evolution. However, knowing something from its beginning (classics in the case of languages) allows for a progression from its inception. This progression presents a subject in its constant evolution that develops before the eyes and mind of the student, enthusiast, etc. Maybe it’s the chemist in me talking but in science classical experiments and reactions are always learned or referred to as a particular topic continues to evolve. I think it much the same in other disciplines. Classic reactions are never regarded as something of the past that should be looked over.

[Jona Lendering]

I am not sure what adversity you have to the classics or maybe the way you explain yourself appears to show adversity. However, I do not see anything terribly wrong with giving classic languages some importance.

I feel no adversity at all; if I hated it, I would not have devoted my life to the classics. For the past 25 years, it's been my job and hobby, 24/7, and I expect it to remain both my job and hobby. It is certainly interesting.

That does not mean, however, that I am blind to the fact that Antiquity is just one period in human history. I might have developed a passion for, say, the American Civil War, or Jeanne d'Arc, or the Dutch Indies. I cannot imagine that a historian writing a book about Otto von Bismarck would say "it is so useful, because it made me more ambitious, it made me learn German languages better, and made me a better person".

I am not adverse to the classics, but I am surprised by the classicists' attitude. Why is the fact that Antiquity is interesting, never enough?

As far as your language statement that French comes easier if you learn Italian is only true if you are born in Italy or live in Italy and practice the language regularly. Any average college course in languages for a few semesters is not going to provide a deep enough understanding that will make the subtle and sometimes stark difference between the romance languages simpler to learn.

True - but also true for Latin. Five years of Latin did not help me acquire Italian faster than five years of French would have done.

I think that learning classics does make you a more cultured person because it allows a perception of the world from a different view point or a point of understanding instead of just knowing that something is because it was taught that way.

Very true; "a civilized person is by definition bilingual". But again, it does not need to be Latin. One of my best friends is a refugee, and although I am sad to hear what she had to endure in the country she came from and what she has had to endure once she was here, she also has a cultural advantage I will never have. A modern "other culture" may serve as well. And again: no refugee will ever claim that he or she is a better person.

***

To be honest, I had not expected the reactions above. I obviously hurt people. That was never my intention.

[Doc]

Jona,

You did not hurt me in any way. No worries. Its great that you have devoted your life to the classics. I wish I had done so because I always find myself leaning towards history and politics of the past more than my own field of chemistry. it is true that antiquity is just an aspect of the human race. However, the great things achieved without our current technology is what makes it interesting and special for me. For instance, building the Pyramids or the Colosseum. We may know how it was done based on how we would do it. However, how they exactly did things of that grand scale is amazing.

I thought that you did not have any adversity. That is why I stated that maybe the way your wrote things appeared to show this, at least to me.

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

I agree with Jona, especially on points 3, 4 and 5 in the article. There are plenty of people who pay no attention to the classics but still have a proper understanding of virtue and ambition. And there are plenty of people who studied the classics and learned all the wrong things.
That said, I think the classics are useful because they're sort of like a case study in human behavior. Granted, we can learn about the ways humans treat each other by studying, say, the Cold War or the Napoleonic Wars, but the classics are useful as a barometer of how things have changed since the dawn of recorded history simply because they're about the more distant past, and that makes the contrast between "then" and "now" much more vivid.

I am not adverse to the classics, but I am surprised by the classicists' attitude. Why is the fact that Antiquity is interesting, never enough?

I'm not really surprised; people take pride in what they do. A lot of athletes have written memoirs about how football (or whichever sport) made them a better person, a lot of soldiers write about how military service made them a better person, we even have poker players writing books about how gambling made them better people.

Let's just say "studying Antiquity can help you gain a broader perspective," and leave it at that.

[Doc]

Well Justin,

The article you provided a link for simply shows that the person who wrote it has a childish understanding of history not to mention that he should really stop watching Rambo and John Wayne.

I especially like it when he says that Julius C. removed all physical threats after crushing his enemies. I find this interesting since he was killed post facto.

[Astiryu1]

To be honest no one should stop watching John Wayne and Rambo. They just shouldn't base their knowledge off of such mentalities. :wink: Rambo 1 at least was based off of a book,"First Blood" the book was fairly good considering the Genre.(Though when I was reading it in Middle School at 13 years old it was considered a little too graphic :lol: and taken away :x )
Rambo and John Wayne (such as they are) are considered classics to most over here but not in the same league as literary works for sure(at least to me)!

[Doc]

I was referring to the concepts of bravado in the movies mentioned.......the tough guy lets kill them all, take no prisoners, bring it on and all the happy horse crap that is an underlying mantra in those movies.

I like Rambo and certain John Wayne movies but I do not defer to them as a means of carrying out certain affairs. However, there are people who actually think using the underlying themes in those movies is productive. Look at that guy from Colorado who was arrested in some forest in Pakistan (I believe it was this country) with a gun, knife, and night vising gogles. His mission was to get Bin Laden all by himself since the US army has not been able to do it, according to him, for the past 9 years. Is this not Rambo type nonsense where one man takes on an army. Please lets get serious.

Anyway, I may be drifting OT and do not wish to de-rail Jona's original post.