Thinking a bit more about this week's blog post (https://acoup.blog/2021/09/24/collections-no-mans-land-part-ii-breaking-the-stalemate/ …) and its predecessor, one thing I hope comes through clearly in this analysis is how many 'easy' solutions fall apart when they make contact with the finicky, stubborn details.
-
-
This tendency to dwell entirely in abstraction - and to propose solutions which only exist in the air of abstraction and not on the ground of reality - seems to me to be a common error of the intellectual class and one that good teaching should push against.
Näytä tämä ketju -
Give students the tools they need to understand something at a more granular level and then keep asking "and *how* do you do that?" until you get down to the very concrete 'who-goes-where-and-eats-what' sort of implementation questions on which the entire issue depends.
Näytä tämä ketju -
Because a solution or theory that works at the level of air abstraction but doesn't work in the details...doesn't work. Abstraction is useful and important but only as the servant of the real, finicky details, never in replacement of them.
Näytä tämä ketju -
Livy puts it brilliantly: "For as new inventions often have great force in the words of men, but when tried, when they need to work, and not just have their working described, they evaporate without any effect – just so the war elephants were just a name without any real use."
Näytä tämä ketju -
(Livy 44.41.4) Or, to put it back in WWI trench warfare terms: it doesn't matter how good your tank doctrine could be, if your best tank can't make 6mph on an open road...you aren't going to have a 'breakthrough.' Anyway, just random thoughts.
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.