The University's Philosophy
A university, as defined through observation, is a institution dedicated to the promotion of academic philosophies. Each university is defined by (and as) an underlying philosophy. The average university is based on an aristocratic philosophy, that was developed in Medieval Europe. The philosophy held the view that higher academic learning should be restricted to only the worthy. Initial, these were the priests and monks of the Church, then it evolved to include the nobility and then, finally, the wealthy. The Papal church (from 1054 AD), restricted access to those studying the priesthood. All truth and knowledge was strictly monitored to ensure the divine knowledge of the Papacy, was being taught. This monitoring was instituted through schools of theology, where degreed authorities determined right and wrong. People, particularly monks (in the early years) were ordained to academic orders to study God's knowledge. They studied astronomy for the church calendar, math for logical thought, music for church music, art, history, the languages (particularly Greek, Latin, and Hebrew). These school were given to the order known as the Jesuits, who's sole function and existence was to find and prevent heresy.
During this period from 1054 AD until well into the 1600's, the Roman Catholic Church used the Jesuits and their schools of theology to enforce their truth. All European monarchs are ordained to their thrown, via Divine ascension. All monarch were ordained to their thrown, via the divine authority of the pope. Any descension against the monarch was descension against the church and heresy. Thus it was in the monarch's interest to maintain the standards of the church. This meant that, initially, only priests (who were monks) were allowed to attend these schools of theology. However, as these schools evolved, the monarchs wanted to be educated and the schools were open to royalty and then the nobility. Entrance in the schools of theology went from ordination to ordination and heredity. Where it remained until the 1800's and the advent of Victorian society. It was here, in the Victorian era, that the philosophy of the university came into being, and the theory of education and proper breeding began. Thus, the university evolved to support a structure that ensured knowledge was kept to those with the proper breeding. As such, only those born into the proper class and those entering the priesthood could attend. Finally, the process, analogous to separating the "cream" from the "milk", becomes the underlying mechanism used to achieve the philosophy - that intelligence is a genetic factor and therefore inherited.
As shown above, the university is an institution that evolved out western theology, and became the foundation into western philosophy would grow. The Papacy (officially began around 1054 AD) had developed a theology in which the Pope was God on Earth (the Vicar of Christ - he who takes the place of Christ). As such, he was the supreme authority - all knowledge and divine knowledge flowed through him. To ensure that his authority was absolute, he ordained monarchs to rule over Europe - under his divine authority. As such, schools were developed to teach and study this absolute knowledge. The absolute knowledge that they choose was based on the work of Aristotle, and rejected a 1000 years of knowledge that can from the Saints of the Church prior to the Schism. The Aristotle universe was perfect and logicalic - created by a perfect God. An All-mighty God, who ordained that his subjects worship him - unconditionally and to ensure this, He (in His infinite wisdome) ordained the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. Who, inturn, ordained the monarchs of Europe and maintained them with the Cardinals. This is why the game of chess has the order King, Queen, Bishop. The bishop (or cardinal) provide the monarch with his divine authority (which came through the Pope from God, Allmighty).
Early research, by the church, set out to show the truth of the perfect God, perfect creations. In fact, much of Europe was centrally controlled via the Papacy. The anything (and any thinking) was to be done on behalf of the Papacy (which became known as the Church) and for the first 500 years of the papacy, any descension was discouraged via public execution of heretics (anyone who thought outside of the church). However, by the 1500's as Europe's cities started to evolve, so did isolated thought. Nobility wanted theirown people, and became the patrons (outside of the church) of thinkers. They like the Church, hired artists for the painting, engineers for building castles and cities, astronomers for the calendar, musicians for the royal parties. Further, with the closing of the orient, there was now a navy and merchant fleet. This meant travel, trading and the mathematics of commerce. This meant that the nobility wanted access to the education that the Church had - so the schools of theology extended their restrictions to include the nobility - so long as they maintained the truth of the church. Which they did, in word. However, in reality, by the 1800's, they were using the old astronomy (calendar) for engineering, sailing, and cartography. They had turned the telescope - used for siting ships and military purposes - into an instrument of science. Pointing it where, the Church said they couldn't. Further, the Church had split into three spheres of European control - Papal (the Church of Rome), Anglican (The Church of England), Protestant (The Church of Germany). All preserved the divine ordination of the monarch, but the Church of England and Germany allowed for a middle class to emerge, typified by Victorian Society. As such, the schools of theology had become the university once again extended their restrictions to include this class of people.
As universities evolved, the use of private tutors for pre-university education also evolved. These private tutors were the early teachers. Hired by the noblity and wealth to educate their children. Male children in particular, because it was the male children that would go on to positions in government and business. The only eduction that girls would receive would be in etiquette and manners. Victorian society was centered around "proper" behavior as a property of "proper" breeding. Who your parent were determined what you would become. Not suprisingly "proper" breeding was central to entrance to education - not only higher education. The best education (private education) was reserved for those who could afford a private tutor. Ill bred children (see the book "Jane Eyre" by Charlette Bronte) were sent to charity schools (run by the Church) or to work if you were poor. Private tutors (for children of society) were based on the nanny/governess system. It was the governess who was charged with the "proper" up bringing of childern. It was in this one area that women were permitted to have an education. Brining up children was the domain of the woman and as such, so was education of children. It is this system that, eventually, evolved into the single room school house and the public education system.
During this evolution of educational philosophy, philosophy itself changed from the theological, clergy only, God-given knowledge to the knowledge of human logic and reasoning - known as humanism. This philosophy should have meant that anyone can learn, or be educated, but it was felt that only people born with the ability could. In this new human age, it was felt that intellect was something like the color of one's hair - a person was born with. It was part of the genetic make-up, and those without such breeding, could not learn. Thus, it was deemed that education until the age of twelve was sufficient for most, and only those who could demonstrate their intellect could go on to higher learning. (The age of twelve is the age that divides elementary school from middle school.) Those deems incapable of higher learning were sent on to a vocation. They would become an apprentice and take up a vocation (this included Benjamin Franklin, who was a book binding apprentice). It's on this model, and idea, that schools are structured. As well, it's because of this philosophy, that what you did, depended on what school you went to; academic or vocational.
The school that you finished from determined the level of job that you would have. A university degree (the highest level of education) would guaranty that you would live better than most. A Philosopher's degree (PhD) was the pinnacle of upper education and these esteemed individuals were a must have in any social event. Events that were limited to those deemed socially acceptable. The reason for this was, that up until about 1970, higher education was reserved for the wealthy. The ideas of breeding and wealth was a convenient way ensuring a proper society that did not threaten the structure created by authority. This idea, although it shouldn't have followed it's way across the Altantic Ocean to America - "Land of the Free". It was here that the idea that anyone could become rich was born. However, as America grew, those who did become rich wanted to buy their way into proper society, not change it. As such, they built theirown universities on the European model.
It stayed this way, until a new move to the left grew out of a counter-culture that was anti-society emerged in the 60's. While, there was no improvement in access to upper-level education for the poor. There was improvement, in the 1900's, in the public school system - which now included high school. Another, 6 years of school (after the elementary 6 grades). At twelve, instead of going to work, new child labor laws, kept them in school until 18 or grade 12. However, this new high school keep the same standards, poor and improperly bred, went into vocational studies, while the rich and well bred went into academic studies (for universities. Vocational students left school after grade 12 and went to work in the factories and mills, while academic students went to university. The irony of this system built in a philosophy of democratic freedom would come in the 60's.
It was the social move to the left, and the adoption of a new socialist philosophy that academia began to open its doors. That's right the academics themselves, in what became known as the 60's, rejected the wealth and culture of their parents. They threw off the clothes that identified them as properly bred members of society and adopted the dress of the hippie (long hair, beard, bizarre clothes). Even their speech became a symbol of their disdain for proper society. The problem - their parents' trust funds, that were paying for their party, would run out. Now, in the 1970's they had to get a job, and they were not employable. Many burned out and filled the streets as disfunctional drug addicts. Others took jobs were they could, those who secretly keeped the old standards got jobs in the government (went into politics), and those keeped the old standards (the wealthy) stayed wealthy. The result was, in the 1980's a swing back to the genetic theory of intelligence and the old barriers to university.
Although universities moved back to the old standards and barriers, the guarrenty of good jobs were gone. Today, graduation rarely provides the expectations that are initially started with. This means that the "success" that was supposed to be reserved for these few, is now open to anyone with the ware-with-all to get there (educated or not). This was the birth of the free market economy, where profit became king. This new world produced a group of people hated by both communists (socialists) and the aristocracy; the nouveau riche and/or the bourgeois. This group of people became rich without an education. They bought their way into society, without the education and culture of old money. The new middle class were the merchants and the manufacturers of goods. They built their fortunes from industries, unlike old money who inherited their fortunes (jobs and positions). The industrialists and capitalists were business men worked for their fortues. As this class was created and grew, new classes evolved. Taking this approach to creating fortune was not without its risks and the reality was that few reach the pinnacle of industrialist and capitalist - the new upper class. Most fall into two classes in the middle class; upper middle class and lower middle class. The upper middle class was formed by workers who either worked in a business or had a business (wearing a white collar shirt). While the lower middle class was formed from workers who worked in factories. The primary difference between the two was education. The upper middle had education beyond high school and were academically educated. While, the lower middle class had no education beyond high school and were vocationally trained. Yet, in a free market economy, even this has not prevented the creation of wealth. Many trades people, have built very successful businesses from the service trade - particularly immigrants who came over in the 1970's. This changed the middle class definitions to upper middle class workers with an education or a business and the lower middle class as employed without an education and without a business. This has been the latest shift, missed by most universities.
The institutions of higher learning, academia, extended their standards of exclusion to prevent this new class from attending. It was a sincere belief (and still is) that the ability to learn was a product of proper "breeding". Further, it's considered a sign of high quality to be exclusive. Thus, although the monarchist system is dead, the modern humanist system has also adopted the class system. It considers, behavioral traits and attributes to be something that people are born with and unalterable. People were born with ability and talent, and it was the responsibility of academea to find it. Thus education system continued in its philosophy, and policy, of testing and evaluating to find the right people with this talent. It divided this talent into two classes, academic and vocational, with academic being the superior. Academics felt that with this system that they would be able to predict who would be influential in society, and who be its intellectual heroes (geniuses). However, if one looks at the track record of the academic elite being able to predict new developments, (or individuals), that would change history, (they never have), one would come to the conclusion that philosophy of a worthy few is seriously flawed.
Clues that a new academic system would be possible could be seen in the 60's, when a "new" philosophy arrived. This philosophy was that universities should be open and free. This idea was born out of the rejection of the old, ridged system. The old system was seen as being stuck worshipping the past, and incapable of producing anything new. The new philosophy was borne in a new era of intellectualism. An era, in which anyone could be an intellectual, regardless of a persons education. Thus, the coffee shop and tea house were borne, (reborn), as a hot-house of intellectual development. This philosophy penetrated into the universities. The experiments of the 60's latested into the 80's and still can be seen in some universities today. However, it never really caught on, most universities that did experimented with the idea, abandoned it in the 80's. The problem was that students enrolled and then never left. Schools graduated students who could not work, in a time were the philosophy of education was becoming increasingly vocational. However, this "new" philosophy was really a new concept, but was developed by Thomas Jefferson, when he started the University of Virginia.
These ideas were borne of the philosophy articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the American Declaration of Independence. A concept that was based on the freedom of the individual. An idea that the individual can choose the path that his life takes; free will. The old idea was that a person life was preordained, that life controlled the person. You were born into your position, or station, in life, and you stayed there. The new idea was that the person controls life by choosing the path that they take, and that, at any point in time, they can choose to change the path that they are on. This does not mean that the path will be easy or without consequent. The earlier concept of human life was that, although it had eliminated the monarch as an imposed control on human beings, could not eliminate the idea that human life was control, or preordained. After all, it appeared that you were going to do no more than what your parents did. However, it was extrapolation of the Greek philosophy of democracy, (rule of the people by the people), that the idea that man could control his destiny was developed. This philosophy, in the United States, created a new reality of the "self-made-man". A philosophy, that stated any man with the means, the ability, and the will, could become king; the ultimate rational man. The U.S. was built on this philosophy. Immigrants, who came poor, became rich. Immigrants, who came uneducated and beat the educated. The united states was, and is the place, were the ordinary can rule the world. It's heroes were the likes of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and J.D. Rockefeller, all of whom were self educated and all of them started universities, Benjamin Franklin started the University of Philadelphia, Thomas Jefferson started the University of Virginia, and J.D. Rockefeller started Rockefeller University. Yet when these self-made men reached the top, the class system was never eliminated. In fact, they enhanced it. Thus, this philosophy of segregation in education continued, until the 1960's when, this philosophy gave way to a new philosophy of freedom.
This new philosophy, that was born in the 60's, was called the "University of Life". Where life became the academic institution - the university. It was a result, in part, of east meeting west. Buddhism and Hindi philosophy, meeting Roman Catholic Christianity. Buddhism, which is a derivative of Hinduism, used experience, and life, as the teacher. These philosophies, of the east, viewed riches, and material wealth, as a barrier to the true experience of life. Thus, the students of this philosophy, were poor and wandered the continent of India, seeking enlightenment from the surrounding environment. (Buddha was this type of philosopher.) Ironically, it is in this type of environment that produced the works of the Greek philosophers, and the European philosophers like Voltaire. It was the cafe, that became the teaching environment. Frescos of the Greek philosophers, showed that the symposiums occurred around a table, upon which, were food and plenty of drink. Remnants of this type of philosophizing can be seen today, in any immigrant home, during a special occasion, with the men gathered around the dinner table eating, drinking and arguing. However, it never successfully developed, in the world of the academic. The problem was the philosophy itself. It, like the philosophy developed by the west, was a philosophy of existence. It sought the answer to the question, why we live - but had no real answer and integrated poorly with the realities of life.
The philosophy of why we live, became to be known as, existential philosophy. It could be divided in to two spheres of influence, a western influence, and an eastern influence. The western influence, would claim its base was in Ancient Greece and Ancient Israel - but be divorced from the ancients by more than one thousand years. While the eastern influence would have its base in Hindi, Buddha and Confucius. However, both views were subjective, and this would be its demise. For while it tried to look for truth, its subjectivity prevented it from being reach. As a result, today, it is common to here that, "there is no truth"; "truth is relative to the observer", etc. They concluded, that because they could never experience truth, that truth did not exist. Thus nothing is absolutely right, or wrong, but it's relative to the situation and the ethics. The problem, for academics, if nothing is right and nothing is wrong - then what's the difference? The consequence, of which, is that you could never know anything - so how do you teach anything? Furthermore, what do you learn? Thus, in today's high tech world, vocational education has become paramount, and the academic world is fading - it's obsolete. There is no use for it any more. It's so out of touch with reality, that a majority of students are in university only for vocational purposes. The hallowed halls of academia are empty, and dead.
However, this does not mean that the archaic structures where gone. In fact, the structures are there, in form, but not substance. Schools are still exclusive, its ghosts still haunt the halls. The zombies, who work within the walls, follow form and script. They award themselves for the blinding ignorance and the dead, who graduate from these schools, go on - spreading the death to the next generation. History's lessons lie forgotten and unused - leaving the world to repeat the horror of lessons forgot. Yet the lies, painted by popular media, convince us that this is "the life", and that this is our utopia; never ending and eternal. However, just because this was the result of one path, of existential philosophy, it is not the only path. There is another path - an objective path. Glimpses of it appear in modern physics, which began in the early 1900's. Surprisingly, although it changed the world and is one of the primary reasons for the death of academeia, the objective path - was never taken. Primarily, objective philosophy is anti-egocentric, where subjective philosophy is egocentric. Subjective philosophy supports the authoritative structure of society - objective philosophy contradicts it.
The world of classical physics, based on the works Sir Issac Newton, was at its pinnacle - when it collapsed. It was assumed that we could understand everything that we see. The human mind was supreme. God, was a creation of it, and not a creation of God. The physics of this period is often referred to as, macroscopic physics; the physics of things that we can see. However, it was at this time, that the physics of things microscopic began. It was here, that the "laws" of classical physics collapsed and the physics of Einstien, Bohr, Rutherford, (and the fathers of the atomic bomb) began. Here, the human mind was not supreme, but the environment - itself - dictated the truth, not the scientist. The scientist was reduced to a mere observer, and not the master. Something, that the academic institution detested. The academic elite protested vigorously, as their "mind-created" pedestals, stature, and world were shattered by experiments. Theory would no longer drive the experiment, but the reverse - experiments would drive theory. The mind was dethroned as supreme being. However, because the supreme being called the mind, determined what the truth is, it denied the truth of these experiments. Thus, physics departed from mainstream academics, while hiding within its structure. This arrangement was necessary for its survival, because only a meager few, understood its complexities, and fewer were willing to put aside their egos. For the ego, provides the eyes for the subjective observer, who sees the world only as it relates to him. Destroying the ego, allows the observer to "see" the world, as it is - with out him. However, there is no reward, no accolade - success and demonstration, is irrelevant.
Akadhmia, is a new type university developed as a part of Delta R&D, Inc. and is based on the objective path of existential philosophy. It bases itself on concepts, like true academic freedom, the freedom of the individual, and the environment as a teacher. For this reason there are no entry restrictions. In addition, it was observed that marks, actually, prevented academic achievement. Marks prevent students from taking on more difficult academic challenges, due to a fear of a low mark, or failure. It also encourages the student to, "cheat". "Cheating", exists because, the reward, "success", is more important. How success is achieved is not as important. However, it is from failure that new academic success is achieved. The "means", for objective academics, is the reward. It's the experience that allows the academic to express his "intellect", and to explore his soul. The academic challenge, is to walk the path of life, and learn from it. To take experience, and derive academic works. It is this, that makes the experience at Akadhmia University different, and consequently, a real alternative to other universities.