I haven't read Campbell's book so can't evaluate his approach per se. I like this list, though because I tend toward the rhetorical, rather than the philosophical, to use Bruce Kimball's (and Christopher Dawson's) distinction.
I took the idea that the components of the trivium were disciplines in their own right not as a contrast with theology as their raison d'être, but with Dorothy Sayers' idea that all disciplines have their own form of the trivium.
I think the classical trivium studied as disciplines, good catechesis and mystagogia, and good literature are the proper preamble for what Andrew Seeley has called the sapiential disciplines--philosophy, theology, etc..
I also think a purely great books approach is inadequate, for the reasons Fr. Schall mentions in A Student's Guide to Liberal Learning, which I'm mentioned on this page. Wyoming Catholic college seems to recognize this by teaching the Trivium through the four years of undergraduate studies.
I agree with Newman that philosophy which opens up to theology is the coordinating discipline of undergraduate education and believe that scientific theology is an advanced study for upper classmen.
I also should mention that I didn't just recently discover Derrick's book, but rather read it a few years ago and have loved it and had a high regard for TAC ever since.
There. I've expressed all my main thoughts about these things.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Back in a post about Latin-Based Curriculum, someone named J.C. commented that the Andrew Campbell book, The Latin-Centered Curriculum, tended to be anti-Catholic, or at least anti-scholastic. I commented on that post, but I'd like to bring that comment to the top to get come conversation going. So, without further ado: