[forty-two]

Originally Posted by ViolaMum

I've heard this before, but the only books I've read are the trivium-as-stages. (Dorothy Sayers, WTM, etc.) Could you expand on this? or suggest some books to read?

Will attempt to . Alternatives to trivium-as-stages neoclassical (often described as some kind of traditional classical ed):
*latin-centered classical ed ("Latin-Centered Curriculum", by Andrew Campbell; "Climbing Parnassus", by Tracy Lee Simmons). Campbell's version focuses on Latin, math, and composition.
*Memoria Press's approach leans more latin-centered than neoclassical, and they have a lot of free articles to read: https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/
*Circe Institute aims for a wisdom and virtue kind of traditional classical ed, and they have a lot of good blog posts and podcasts: https://www.circeinstitute.org/

Generally speaking, proponents of some kind of traditional classical ed are pretty disenchanted with modern education and the modern approach to living life, and are looking to the wisdom of the past to find better alternatives to education and living life. Neoclassical, to paint with a broad brush, is more about incorporating the wisdom of the past in order to better implement a modern education, while traditional classical ed is rejecting much or all of modern education, and is trying to achieve entirely different goals than modern education. One similarity between CM and traditional classical ed is seeing education as encompassing all of life, that the point of education is to equip students to live a good life.

~*~

Expanding on it a bit, the idea of the trivium as subjects - or arts - means that grammar, etc., isn't just a way of learning that can be applied to any subject. Grammar study isn't about building certain habits of mind that are unconnected to any particular content. Rather, grammar-as-art means that there's grammar *content* as well as grammar habits of mind, and it's learning the *content* that builds the habits of mind. You can't separate ideas from facts and you can't separate habits of mind from specific content.

And there's a lot more to grammar (and logic and rhetoric) than you might think. Grammar isn't just about pointless, unconnected to reality rules; rather, grammar study is about how our words connect to reality.

Grammar is the art of describing reality with precision and accuracy. All those persnickety grammar rules about transitive versus intransitive verbs and such are rooted in reality, and making sure our speech reflects those rooted-in-reality differences. Learning grammar means learning to see reality with more precise eyes, and learning how to put our thoughts into words that say just what we mean them to say. One's grammar study both shapes and reflects one's philosophy.

I looked up older Latin grammar books, and their definitions of nouns and adjectives were rooted in Aristotelian philosophy (a noun substantive is a thing that exists in itself (aka a substance) and a noun adjective describes a thing that cannot exist in itself but must be joined to a substance).

And changes in how people see reality, and what sort of connection to reality our words have, and what sort of order is embedded in reality - all those things are reflected in how we teach grammar and logic, and all those things are *taught* when we teach grammar and logic.

(Hopefully this makes sense - I'm barely keeping my eyes open .)