The Nature of Liberal Education Revisited

Professor Sheldon Rothblatt endorses the view that the nature of liberal education is not defined by the specific set of subjects. In addition, he suspects the alleged outcome of liberal education such as character formation, leadership, critical thinking, and breadth is not as clear as we assume to be. While acknowledging some of those ideas, Professor SungKi Hong gives a critical review of Rothblatt’s position. In this paper, I examine Rothblatt’s position and Hong’s critical review respectively. I also discuss the ideas of John Dewey and John William Miller regarding the nature of both liberal and practical education. Furthermore, in view of Everett Dean Martin’s insights, I suggest that we can define the nature of liberal education not by what we teach, but rather how we teach, placing an emphasis on the meaning and value of life. For in doing so, we can at least guarantee that no matter what we teach, the “education” will not be reduced to mere “training”.