the higher learning in america-第2节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





dispassionate　inquiry　into　the　place　which　modern　learning　holds



in　modern　civilization　will　show　that　such　is　also　the　case　of



this　latest；　and　in　the　mind　of　its　keepers　the　most　mature；



system　of　knowledge。　It　should　by　no　means　be　an　insuperably



difficult　matter　to　show　that　this　〃higher　learning〃　of　the



modern　world；　the　current　body　of　science　and　scholarship；　also



holds　its　place　on　such　a　tenure　of　use　and　wont；　that　it　has



grown　and　shifted　in　point　of　content；　aims　and　methods　in



response　to　the　changes　in　habits　of　life　that　have　passed　over



the　Western　peoples　during　the　period　of　its　growth　and



ascendancy。　Nor　should　it　be　embarrassingly　difficult　to　reach



the　persuasion　that　this　process　of　change　and　supersession　in



the　scope　and　method　of　knowledge　is　still　effectually　at　work；



in　a　like　response　to　institutional　changes　that　still　are



incontinently　going　forward。（1*）



　　　　To　the　adepts　who　are　occupied　with　this　esoteric　knowledge；



the　scientists　and　scholars　on　whom　its　keeping　devolves；　the



matter　will　of　course　not　appear　in　just　that　light；　more



particularly　so　far　as　regards　that　special　segment　of　the　field



of　knowledge　with　the　keeping　and　cultivation　of　which　they　may；



each　and　several；　be　occupied。　They　are；　each　and　several；



engaged　on　the　perfecting　and　conservation　of　a　special　line　of



inquiry；　the　objective　end　of　which；　in　the　view　of　its　adepts；



will　necessarily　be　the　final　and　irreducible　truth　as　touches



matters　within　its　scope。　But；　seen　in　perspective；　these　adepts



are　themselves　to　be　taken　as　creatures　of　habit；　creatures　of



that　particular　manner　of　group　life　out　of　which　their



preconceptions　in　matters　of　knowledge；　and　the　manner　of　their



interest　in　the　run　of　inquiry；　have　sprung。　So　that　the　terms　of



finality　that　will　satisfy　the　adepts　are　also　a　consequence　of



habituation；　and　they　are　to　be　taken　as　conclusive　only　because



and　in　so　far　as　they　are　consonant　with　the　discipline　of



habituation　enforced　by　that　manner　of　group　life　that　has



induced　in　these　adepts　their　particular　frame　of　mind。



　　　　Perhaps　at　a　farther　remove　than　many　other　current



phenomena；　but　none　the　less　effectually　for　that；　the　higher



learning　takes　its　character　from　the　manner　of　life　enforced　on



the　group　by　the　circumstances　in　which　it　is　placed。　These



constraining　circumstances　that　so　condition　the　scope　and　method



of　learning　are　primarily；　and　perhaps　most　cogently；　the



conditions　imposed　by　the　state　of　the　industrial　arts；　the



technological　situation；　but　in　the　second　place；　and　scarcely



less　exacting　in　detail；　the　received　scheme　of　use　and　wont　in



its　other　bearings　has　its　effect　in　shaping　the　scheme　of



knowledge；　both　as　to　its　content　and　as　touches　the　norms　and



methods　of　its　organization。　Distinctive　and　dominant　among　the



constituent　factors　of　this　current　scheme　of　use　and　wont　is　the



pursuit　of　business；　with　the　outlook　and　predilections　which



that　pursuit　implies。　Therefore　any　inquiry　into　the　effect　which



recent　institutional　changes　may　have　upon　the　pursuit　of　the



higher　learning　will　necessarily　be　taken　up　in　a　peculiar　degree



with　the　consequences　which　an　habitual　pursuit　of　business　in



modern　times　has　had　for　the　ideals；　aims　and　methods　of　the



scholars　and　schools　devoted　to　the　higher　learning。



　　　　The　Higher　Learning　as　currently　cultivated　by　the　scholars



and　scientists　of　the　Western　civilization　differs　not



generically　from　the　esoteric　knowledge　purveyed　by　specialists



in　other　civilizations；　elsewhere　and　in　other　times。　It　engages



the　same　general　range　of　aptitudes　and　capacities；　meets　the



same　range　of　human　wants；　and　grows　out　of　the　same　impulsive



propensities　of　human　nature。　Its　scope　and　method　are　different



from　what　has　seemed　good　in　other　cultural　situations；　and　its



tenets　and　canons　are　so　far　peculiar　as　to　give　it　a　specific



character　different　from　these　others；　but　in　the　main　this



specific　character　is　due　to　a　different　distribution　of　emphasis



among　the　same　general　range　of　native　gifts　that　have　always



driven　men　to　the　pursuit　of　knowledge。　The　stress　falls　in　a



somewhat　obviously　different　way　among　the　canons　of　reality　by



recourse　to　which　men　systematize　and　verify　the　knowledge



gained；　which　is　in　its　turn　due　to　the　different　habituation　to



which　civilized　men　are　subjected；　as　contrasted　with　the



discipline　exercised　by　other　and　earlier　cultures。



　　　　In　point　of　its　genesis　and　growth　any　system　of　knowledge



may　confidently　be　run　back；　in　the　main；　to　the　initiative　and



bias　afforded　by　two　certain　impulsive　traits　of　human　nature：　an



Idle　Curiosity；　and　the　Instinct　of　Workmanship。（2*）



　　　　In　this　generic　trait　the　modern　learning　does　not　depart



from　the　rule　that　holds　for　the　common　run。　Men　instinctively



seek　knowledge；　and　value　it。　The　fact　of　this　proclivity　is　well



summed　up　in　saying　that　men　are　by　native　gift　actuated　with　an



idle　curiosity；　　〃idle〃　in　the　sense　that　a　knowledge　of　things



is　sought；　apart　from　any　ulterior　use　of　the　knowledge　so



gained。（3*）　This；　of　course；　does　not　imply　that　the　knowledge　so



gained　will　not　be　turned　to　practical　account。　In　point　of　fact；



although　the　fact　is　not　greatly　relevant　to　the　inquiry　here　in



hand；　the　native　proclivity　here　spoken　of　as　the　instinct　of



workmanship　will　unavoidably　incline　men　to　turn　to　account；　in　a



system　of　ways　and　means；　whatever　knowledge　so　becomes



available。　But　the　instinct　of　workmanship　has　also　another　and



more　pertinent　bearing　in　these　premises；　in　that　it　affords　the



norms；　or　the　scheme　of　criteria　and　canons　of　verity；　according



to　which　the　ascertained　facts　will　be　construed　and　connected　up



in　a　body　of　systematic　knowledge。　Yet　the　sense　of　workmanship



takes　effect　by　recourse　to　divers　expedients　and　reaches　its



ends　by　recourse　to　varying　principles；　according　as　the



habituation　of　workday　life　has　enforced　one　or　another　scheme　of



interpretation　for　the　facts　with　which　it　has　to　deal。



　　　　The　habits　of　thought　induced　by　workday　life　impose



themselves　as　ruling　principles　that　govern　the　quest　of



knowledge；　it　will　therefore　be　the　habits　of　thought　enforced　by



the　current　technological　scheme　that　will　have　most　（or　most



immediately）　to　say　in　the　current　systematization　of　facts。　The



working　logic　of　the　current　state　of　the　industrial　arts　will



necessarily　insinuate　itself　as　the　logical　scheme　which　must；　of



course；　effectually　govern　the　interpretation　and　generalizations



of　fact　in　all　their　commonplace　relations。　But　the　current　state



of　the　industrial　arts　is　not　all　that　conditions　workmanship。



Under　any　given　institutional　situation；　　and　the　modern　scheme



of　use　and　wont；　law　and　order；　is　no　exception；workmanship　is



held　to　a　more　or　less　exacting　conformity　to　several　tests　and



standards　that　are　not　intrinsic　to　the　state　of　the　industrial



arts；　even　if　they　are　not　alien　to　it；　such　as　the　requirements



imposed　by　the　current　system　of　ownership　and　pecuniary　values。



These　pecuniary　conditions　that　impose　themselves　on　the



processes　of　industry　and　on　the　conduct　of　life；　together　with



the　pecuniary　accountancy　that　goes　with　them　　the　price　system



have　much　to　say　in　the　guidance　and　limitations　of　workmanship。



And　when　and　in　so　far　as　the　habituation　so　enforced　in　the



traffic　of　workday　life　goes　into　effect　as　a　scheme　of　logic



governing　the　quest　of　knowledge；　such　principles　as　have　by



habit　found　acceptance　as　being　conventionally　salutary　and



conclusive　in　the　pecuniary　conduct　of　affairs　will　necessarily



leave　their　mark　on　the　ideals；　aims；　methods　and　standards　of



science　and　those　principles　and　scholarship。　More　particularly；



standards　of　organization；　control　and　achievement；　that　have



been　accepted　as　an　habitual　matter　of　course　in　the　conduct　of



business　will；　by　force　of　habit；　in　good　part　reassert



themselves　as　indispensable　and　conclusive　in　the　conduct　of　the



affairs　of　learning。　While　it　remains　true　that　the　bias　of



workmanship　continues　to　guide　the　quest　of　knowledge；　under　the



conditions　imposed　by　modern　institutions　it　will　not　be　the



naive　conceptions　of　primitive　workmanship　that　will　shape　the



framework　of　the　modern　system　of　learning；　but　rather　the



preconceptions　of　that　disciplined　workmanship　that　has　been



instructed　in　the　logic　of　the　modern　technology　and