Is the Trivium a meme?

>General Grammar, Aristotelian Logic, and Classical Rhetoric comprise the first three rules-based subjects of the 7 Liberal Arts and Sciences. As these disciplines are learned and practiced together, they form the overarching, symbiotic system for establishing clarity and consistency of personal thought called the Trivium.

I never considered that grammar, logic, and rhetoric could be that helpful as a tool for organizing thinking.

Is there some merit to the Trivium? Why is it grown out of use?

Are there similar systems for strengthening understanding and communication?

Honestly, I wish there was more discussion about how to live a non-degenerate life and how best to obtain a grounded perspective of the world, in academics and in pragmatics. Even at the end of the Roman Republic, the politicians were still intelligent, passionate, and capable thinkers. Caesar, Cato, Cicero, etc. It seems like we live in highly degenerate times in comparison, given how incompetent and shallow our leaders are. We have volumes of knowledge of not only how to express great ideas, but also on how to live a good life, and yet not even the greatest of us seems to follow those prescriptions. Compare Jeb Bush to Marc Antony--the former wouldn't have lasted a minute in the Roman civil war.

Can someone give me a quick rundown of the Trivium?

Grammar - not only to convey your message clearly. Grammar is also pretty fucking important if you're learning Latin and Greek as classical languages.
Logic - learning formal logic and knowing how to conduct arguments.
Rhetoric - understanding how people are persuaded.

I think studying (really studying, nor learning them by heart) Grammar and Logic would he very helpful to understand and develop more complex ideas.
However I don't feel the same about Rhetoric. Unless you want your students to become rhetoricians. But I think that's a waste of time.
>Is there some merit to the Trivium?
Just look at what people who learned it achieved.
>Why is it grown out of use?
It was intended for the higher spheres of the society.

-Plato bowed to the Trivium
-Required for contact with aliens
-Imparts psychic-like abilities after learning
-Controlled the Middle Ages with an iron but fair fist
-In monasteries & nunneries globally
-Direct descendants of the ancient Roman education
-First designer babies will in all likelihood be educated in grammar, logic, and rhetoric before moving onto higher liberal arts
-All alumni said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in Tibetan monasteries & Area 51
-Ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon Earth and will bring a three-pronged era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them
-You likely have Triviumbots inside you right now
-Alumni can learn fluent French in under a week
-Nation states entrust the education of their elites with the Trivium. There’s no Common Core in Cambridge MA or Alexandria VA, only the Trivium.
-The Trivium is about 7 centuries old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society
-In reality, it is derived from the sacred realm of the forms, existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe.

Let me give you a basic gestalt.

>However I don't feel the same about Rhetoric. Unless you want your students to become rhetoricians. But I think that's a waste of time.

Unless your pursuit of knowledge is meant to be a selfish adventure, it would probably be a good idea to learn how to communicate your ideas effectively with other people. You should be a rhetorician, among other things, as a well-rounded and capable adult.

In case you're biased by negative connotations towards "rhetoric" or "rhetoricians", I can provide an example of what rhetoric entails. The Trivium by Sister Miriam Joseph divides "rhetoric" into plot structure, figurative language, form and meter, analysis of language, and brief notes on composition. Pretty useful for building upon the lessons in "grammar" and "logic" to package ideas together.

Checked. Also, here's some books I can contribute that are part of the Trivium or are Trivium-like:

How to Read a Book - Mortimer J. Adler
The Trivium - Sister Miriam Joseph
Creative and Critical Thinking: W. Edgar Moore
Thinking, Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman
The Art of Fiction - David Lodge
The Oxford Essential Guide to Writing - Thomas S. Kane
Western Philosophy: An Anthology - John Cottingham

Also, a solid algebra, geometry, and pre-calculus education would be a good foundation as well for quantitative thinking, clarity of ideas, and problem-solving. Check Veeky Forums's recommendation list for good works, though I would also recommend Pre-Calculus - C. Stitz & J. Zeager.

Once you're done with all of that, well, stop doubting yourself and start reading dense shit with your newfound analytical abilities.

In case you want more books for the rhetoric and self-improvement side, try:

How to Speak, How to Listen -- Mortimer J. Adler
Improve Your Social Skills - Daniel Wendler
The Discourses - Epictetus
A Primer in Positive Psychology - Christopher Peterson

I think that if students take hard lessons on logic and grammar they will be capable of communicating their ideas effectively without the need for studying rhetorics provided they also study other topics hard.

Rhetorics may or not sound good on paper, but it produces a lot of liars.

Another reason why I think studying rhetorics is a waste of time is because Whit rhetorics you can take a simple idea and make it appear as if ot was really complex. I would prefer my students to generate actual complex thoughts and not only complex-seeming.

Familiarity with rhetoric increases your ability to detect lies because you're familiar with the use of language and its ability to clarify and to obscure. George Orwell talks a lot about how political language is meant to be dense and incomprehensible in order to be oppressive. Besides, communicating is a mini-experiment in psychology in that you must understand the audience's perspective, and rhetoric helps you to be competent in communicating ideas in familiar ways.

Rhetoric also deals with the organization of ideas in its presentation, which can direct the audience to certain conclusions out of all possible conclusions. Appeals to "x" are about subverting the various intuitions, heuristics, and biases that we possess. This is especially tricky because they're not always wrong! Despite their origins of such appeals, which can be biological, social, and philosophical, it can be very difficult to detect and evaluate them unless you understand the flexibility of language in and out.

Finally, don't we all have a need to be persuasive at some point of our lives? Telling the truth also requires persuasion. What good are your insights if nobody will believe them?

>muh lawwwwjik
Disgusting. Literally the thinking of primitive humans.

Misuse is a problem in all fields. Same thing can be done with mathematics. Or with science. Usually, the inability to express complex thoughts clearly is the result of poor rhetoric, not the result of improper rhetoric. They're all tools for expressing ideas in the long-run. If your students truly have rhetorical ability, then punish them the first time around, so they'll deliver a coherent masterpiece the second time around.

>truth exists
*tips ugly fucking hat that i wear to look like a classy old fashioned fella despite wearing a madoka t-shirt and track shorts*

What the fuck did you just say to me, you little bitch? I'll have you know that I graduated top of my class in Aristotelian metaphysics, and I have over 300 confirmed lectures on phenomenology. I am trained in the interrogation of Being, and I am the top philosopher in the entire Third Reich. You are nothing to me but just another Being-in-the-world. You think you can get away with ignoring the ontological structure of truth, or the relationship between assertions and what it uncovers about Beings-in-the-World, bringing entities into focus? Think again, fucker.

Lies are not the problem for me, it's the large amount of staged situations that rhetoricians constantly talk about nowadays what makes me angry.
>Rhetoric also deals with the organization of ideas in its presentation, which can direct the audience to certain conclusions out of all possible conclusions.
And that is a big problem. Rhetorics is about directing the thinking of your peers, not telling them something and letting them understand it as they will.
>Telling the truth also requires persuasion
Only if you're surrounded by rhetoricians or being judged. But not really. Truth remains truth even if nobody is persuaded.
>What good are your insights if nobody will believe them?
Exactly the same.

>Misuse is a problem in all fields.
I would prefer them to misuse areas of knowledge that are actually useful.

Truth doesn't exist.

Sincere thoughts, I mean.

>Lies are not the problem for me, it's the large amount of staged situations that rhetoricians constantly talk about nowadays what makes me angry.

What/who are you referring to with regards to rhetoricians? I don't think I could name many proper rhetoricians today.

>And that is a big problem. Rhetorics is about directing the thinking of your peers, not telling them something and letting them understand it as they will.

You're only looking at half of the dimensions of rhetoric. Rhetoric is the medium of communicating ideas. If you're not skilled in the use of language, and they don't understand your ideas in the way you've discovered them, then your work has been lost forever. Nothing is ever "telling somebody something". No communication exists in a contextual vacuum. Do you plan on communicating without speech, essays, books, poems, songs, etc.?

>Truth remains truth even if nobody is persuaded.

Then it's not useful. Nobody will know or believe it. Your discoveries will die with you.

Then again, if you're engaging in a selfish pursuit of knowledge, and you have no qualms about convincing other people when you're done, then you're right that rhetoric will not be useful to you.

With rhetoricians I mean every person who is in the business of convincing, and convinces with speech. Politicians, advertisers, news presenters, etc.

>You're only looking at half of the dimensions of rhetoric
And you're only looking at the other half.

>they don't understand your ideas in the way you've discovered them, then your work has been lost forever
That's extremely inaccurate.

>Then it's not useful. Nobody will know or believe it. Your discoveries will die with you.
Not useful for whom? How can you judge the usefulness of a truth that hasn't even been presented?

Then again, if you're engaging in a selfish pursuit of knowledge, and you have no qualms about convincing other people when you're done, then you're right that rhetoric will not be useful to you.
Do you really believe that's the only scenario in which one person could ever reject rhetoric?

Not them, but the irony of wanting to defending rhetoric to someone that has rejected rhetoric is deafening.

I don't think I'll bother with it. Neat bait if it is, though.

The ancient version would probably look like this:
Grammar and Logic: Aristotle's Organon
Rhetoric: Aristotle's Rhetoric

Boy did those fuckers love Aristotle.

Maybe throw in some Martianus Capella too? That guy was widely read during the Carolingian Renaissance, iirc.

Using rhetoric to defend rhetoric against a person who's "rejected" rhetoric while employing rhetoric in said rejection. I don't think you want to touch that mess with a ten foot pole.

Who the fuck doesn't like Aristotle? He singlehandedly discovered biology, logic, and physics. He also fucked five bitches in one day. So you better show some respect.

Why do these threads never get attention? I see a bunch of aimless self-improvement threads every day, but whenever there's a system that could reasonably help people out, nobody bothers to interact with it.

Face it, Veeky Forums. You're all a bunch of lazy, posturing retards and you'll never read the classics, find a waifu, or get published.

What do you think we are, a bunch of /pseudointellectuals/ claiming that we're on the verge of a personal breakthrough? Get over yourself.

>Western Philosophy: An Anthology - John Cottingham

Is this a good intro to philosophy? I saw this in a store in Tallinn, and it seemed good at a first glance.

>Grammar
Learn Latin or Greek. There's no way you can learn them without learning grammar, and when reading classical works you have to be very attentive to the words' cases, so you're always training grammar.

>Logic
I think that learning not to get carried away by unsubstantial thoughts is way more important than having a perfect logic. Schopenhauer and Hume would be useful here.

>Rhetoric
Have clear ideas and a good vocabulary and you will be able to communicate them (even though there's no guarantee there will be no misunderstanding). To make the communication more agreeable I would only recommend reading good writers and rhetoricians.

One thing I would add is: trying to understand your opponent's ideas is way more important than just trying to make him agree with you. If you adopt the former attitude, you will always get some new insight from your discussions, while if you adopt the latter you will either get nothing new or end up frustrated. The great error of 99% of debates is that people jump right into trying to prove their points and refuting the other's when they aren't even sure if they were understood or if they have understood the opponent's point. How can you persuade the other of something he doesn't understand? And how can you refute an idea you can't understand?

Your multiples uses of "rhetoric" didn't change the meaning at all. I get you wanted to tap into emphasis through repetition, but the person you replied to already said what you wanted to say.

You can't verbally defend in that way without rhetoric. You can't reject something in that way without using rhetoric.

>mfw I've done the three things you hold up as some kind of standard
If you're too dumb to go out and learn something you're already interested in, it's your loss.

Stop asking us if each rung on the ladder is the right way forward. Climb, little monkey, climb!

>cases
Whoops, meant 'endings' in general, the changes are not only about cases.

I saw Trivium supporting Iron Maiden once

Who said I called it a standard? And who the hell said I'm obsessed about following some path and climbing some "rung on the ladder"? I'm a fairly competent person who isn't afraid to try new things and hone my skills.

Yes. I'm now interested in the Trivium after hearing about it in this thread. I'm surprised so few people have talked about it.

Lol you've never spoken to a member of today's elite, haven't you?

Have you read How to Read a Book? From what I recall it was really strict in it's advice and not really related to Trivium-like thought

I think knowing how to read efficiently and effectively is equally as important as the Trivium. The book also provides methods to improve comprehension of texts and offers ways of making useful comparisons between texts. Goes hand it hand with the Trivium if your overall goal is forming the foundations for ntellectual self-improvement

No one said you called it a standard. I said that held it up AS a kind of standard.

Do you know what the difference is?

The Quadrivium is pretty interesting too, if not as directly useful today. They believed that Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Cosmology, when studied together, granted insight into the fundamental truths of the universe. Given modern science and the inaccuracies present in previous ages, it's largely hogwash. For example, they like to draw attention to how the orbits of our solar system largely emulate basic harmonies, when repetitive, counteracting forces are the only way for multiple planetary bodies to sustain stable orbits. It grants a lot of insight into the beliefs of the time, and is genuinely fascinating, but also isn't demonstrative of some fundamental truths, just basic science.

I am that poster. I never treated the Trivium as a "kind of standard". Nobody is waiting on confirmation to see if it's the end-all be-all to knowledge before doing anything else. It's just a traditional curriculum that seems like it could be useful. I like to try new things to improve my thinking, and this seems helpful and insightful.

I think you can replace the Quadrivium with a modern assortment of liberal arts education consisting of rigorous sciences, maths, and humanities.

I like the idea of the quadrivium as aspects of mathematics:
Math
Geometry (math in space)
Music (math in time)
Astronomy (math in space and time)

Obviously, modern science has much more to cover, but I I like the idea that it is all applications of math to different areas.

It's possible they were referring to reading to classics, finding a waifu, and getting published. You did present these three criteria without which user would have to "face it".

>Mathematics, Design, Psychology, Natural Science
Is this the Quadrivium for the current era?

>The Quadrivium is pretty interesting too, if not as directly useful today

You are taking these topics as stuck in time and not evolving as they were. Does anyone say to study Aristotle's logic when the topic of the trivium comes up? No, typically they'll point to a course or book in propositional and predicate logic.

Having the aim of studying something like cosmology in depth would give you a major overview of fundamental physics education. To understand the evolution of the universe, you need to understand particle physics and field theories. To understand the large scale structure of the universe you need general and special relativity. To understand stellar evolution, you need thermodynamics among other topics. To understand theories about the multiverse you need quantum mechanics. To understand things in our own backyard like the movement of large objects, you need classical mechanics. Thus through wanting to understanding cosmology, you also get the equivalent of an undergrad level of knowledge in physics.

The same thing could be said of geometry. Why? You can easily spread out from Euclidean constructions to analytic and projective geometry, and then to other geometric topics that draw on vast major fields of mathematics. Differential geometry needs calculus and analysis. Algebraic geometry draws on abstract algebra. Fractal geometry draws on measure theory, topology, and dynamic systems (ODEs/PDEs).

>-In reality, it is derived from the sacred realm of the forms, existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe.
>realm of forms
throw that shit in the trash