 Eliot Hodgkin Undergrowth 1941 “The Ultimate Object of Education––Suppose the parent see that the formation of character is the ultimate object of education; see, too, that character is, in the rough, the inherited tendencies of the child, modified by his surroundings, but that character may be debased or ennobled by education; that it is the parents' part to distinguish the first faint budding of family traits; to greet every fine trait as the highest sort of family possession to be nourished and tended with care; to keep up at the same time the balance of qualities by bringing forward that which is of little account––the more so when they must deliver their child from eccentricity, pitfall to the original and forceful nature;––suppose they have taken all this into the role of their duties, there yet remains much for parents to do. The Defects of our Qualities––We are open to what the French call the defects of our qualities; and as ill weeds grow apace, the defects of a fine character may well choke out the graces.” * “Two Luminous Principles. ––This is doubtless true of Psychology alone, but of Psychology illuminated by Physiology we have another tale to tell. It is the study of that border-land betwixt mind and matter, the brain, which yields the richest results to the educator. For the brain is the seat of habit: the culture of habit is, to a certain extent, physical culture: the discipline of habit is at least a third part of the great whole which we call education, and here we feel that the physical science of to-day has placed us in advance of the philosopher of fifty years ago. We hold with him entirely as to the importance of great formative ideas in the education of children, but we add to our ideas, habits, and we labour to form habits upon a physical basis. Character is the result not merely of the great ideas which are given to us, but of the habits which we labour to form upon those ideas. We recognise both principles, and the result is a wide range of possibilities in education, practical methods, and a definite aim. We labour to produce a human being at his best physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually, with the enthusiasms of religion, of the good life, of nature, knowledge, art, and manual work; and we do not labour in the dark.” * “We cannot, as you will see presently, afford to have cracks in our character.” * “I have used the current phrase, ‘formation of character’ because it is current and therefore convenient; but to show that I recognize the fallacy it contains, I venture to quote the following (very inadequate) definition: ‘His character—the efflorescence (unfolding and flourishing) of the man wherein the fruit of his life is a-preparing—character is original disposition, modified, directed, expanded by education, by circumstances; later by self-control and self-culture; above all, by the supreme agency of the Holy Spirit, even when that agency is little suspected and as little solicited,’ that is to say, character is not the outcome of a formative educational process; but inherent tendencies are played upon, more or less incidentally, and the outcome is character.” Examen: Why does Mason find it necessary to preface her work with cautions about the word character? What does she mean by “we are not in the dark?” ~~~~~~~ The Ultimate Object: Charlotte M. Mason, Parents and Children, 2:83. Two Luminous Principles: Charlotte M. Mason, School Education, 3:99. We cannot, as: Charlotte M. Mason, Ourselves, 4:174 Bk.I. I have used: Charlotte M. Mason, Formation of Character, 5:Preface Emphasis Mine. Character meditation/100 Days copyright Laurie Bestvater 2025
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
"Thus, I propose that the middle of February remind CM admirers
|
