Self-education as a means of formation
of identity of future doctor..


Education as a science cannot be separated from the educational traditions that existed
before. Education was the natural response of early civilizations to the struggle of
surviving and thriving as a culture. Adults trained the young of their society in the
knowledge and skills they would need to master and eventually pass on. The evolution of
culture, and human beings as a species depended on this practice of transmitting
knowledge. In pre-literate societies this was achieved orally and through imitation. Storytelling continued from one generation to the next. Oral language developed into written
symbols and letters.
Education as a science cannot be separated from the educational traditions that existed
before. Education was the natural response of early civilizations to the struggle of
surviving and thriving as a culture. Adults trained the young of their society in the
knowledge and skills they would need to master and eventually pass on. The evolution of
culture, and human beings as a species depended on this practice of transmitting
knowledge. In pre-literate societies this was achieved orally and through imitation. Storytelling continued from one generation to the next. Oral language developed into written
symbols and letters. The depth and breadth of knowledge that could be preserved and
passed soon increased exponentially. When cultures began to extend their knowledge
beyond the basic skills of communicating, trading, gathering food, religious practices, etc,
formal education, and schooling, eventually followed. Schooling in this sense was already






The perfection of human nature, such indeed is the ideal purpose of education. It
is in the same sense that Kant, Madame Necker de Saussure, and Stuart
Mill have given the following definitions :
"Education is the development in man of all the perfection which his nature
permits."
"To educate a child is to put him in a condition to fulfil as perfectly as possible the
purpose of his life."
"Education includes whatever we do for ourselves and whatever is done for us by
others, for the express purpose of bringing us nearer to the perfection of our
nature."
Here it is the general purpose of education which is principally in view. But the term
perfection is somewhat vague and requires some explanation. Herbert Spencer's
definition responds in part to this need :
"Education is the preparation for complete living."
Self-education
 Education encompasses teaching and learning specific skills, and
also something less tangible but more profound: the imparting of
knowledge, positive judgment and well-developed wisdom.
 Education encompasses both the teaching and learning of
knowledge, proper conduct, and technical competency. It thus
focuses on the cultivation of skills, trades or professions, as well
as mental, moral & aesthetic development.
 Formal education consists of systematic instruction, teaching and
training by professional teachers. This consists of the application
of pedagogy and the development of curricula. In a liberal
education tradition, teachers draw on many different disciplines for
their lessons, including psychology, philosophy, linguistics,
biology, and sociology. Teachers in specialized professions such
as astrophysics, law, or zoology may teach only in a narrow area,
usually asprofessors at institutions of higher learning.
Self-education
Self-education

It is possible for man to educate himself without help or support from others. In
fact, when we learn the art of self-education (learning how to learn versus how
to be taught) we will find, if not create, opportunity to find success beyond our
wildest dreams. Self-educated people are not dependent on others for
knowledge. If they need a specialized skill, they know how to acquire it without
dependence on authority. Unknowingly, people are promoted by their ability to
learn new skills fast. Bosses may not recognize how people learn, but they do
recognize the results. People, who know how to educate themselves have
choices, they have the ability to advance in any endeavor.

There are many ways to acquire a skill that has value to someone else.
Everyone is unique and this uniqueness has value, but only the individual can
explore and discover what that uniqueness is. People, who do not depend on
authority for guidance can start now. People, who want someone to show them
the way may never get started. Dependency on self to develop skills is a
powerful skill in itself. This is the tool of super achievers.
Self-education

The following people were self-educated, using projects as their education tool. Academic
achievement was a by-product. Some never went to school while others did not go beyond high
school. The ideas of these people changed the way we live.











Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) born a slave.
Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
Wright Brothers
Henry Ford
Charles Lindbergh
Walt Disney
Chuck Yeager - First man to fly faster than sound
Steve Jobs - Inventor of the personal computer
Kirk Kerkorian - Hollywood

Before 1960, self-education was a highly desirable and acceptable form of education. When
the astronauts were chosen, the first requirement was a college education. This eliminated the
man who made space flight possible, Chuck Yeager. His formal education was limited to high
school. From that time on, society no longer recognized self-educated people. Today, it is
becoming a lost art.
"All men who have turned out worth anything has had the chief
hand in their own education." -- Sir Walter Scott
What is self-education?
 Self-education is learning in its purest form. You decide
what you want to learn, when you’re going to learn it,
and how you’re going to master the subject. There are
no formal teachers, no essays, no exams, no group
projects, and no grades.
 You can start at any age, whether you’re one or onehundred. It’s one of the best ways to become an
interesting person and sure beats spending your
weekends in front of the TV.
Why self-education?








Take a look at almost any great historical figure and you’ll find that he is a product of selfeducation. Even if he was a college graduate, chances are that he spent years or even
decades independently studying topics that were relevant to his life.
Consider these examples:
Abigail Adams received no formal education. Instead, she taught herself by reading works from
her father’s large library. She went on to become the second First Lady of the United States,
and an early champion for women’s rights.
Renowned mythologist Joseph Campbell decided not to follow his plans to earn a doctorate
degree. Instead, after earning his Master’s, Campbell retreated into the woods of upstate New
York. For five years he read for upwards of nine hours a day, and developed his unique
perspective on the power of myth. He went on to teach what he learned and write books, such
as The Power of Myth
and The Hero With a Thousand Faces
– works that are still studied on college campuses today.
Early American patriot Benjamin Franklin ended his formal education when he was just ten
years old. He went on to become a printing press apprentice, working for his brother. Through
the years he was an avid reader and writer. He published several books including The
Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
, invented products such as the lighting rod and bifocal glasses, and assisted in the writing of
the Declaration of Independence.
What should I learn?




Learn anything you want.
Consider starting with the classics. Unless you graduated from an Ivy League school or
attended a liberal arts college with a great books program, chances are that you missed
out on a classical education. You didn’t get the chance to delve into the literature that
defines Western civilization and reflects the “great conversation” – an ongoing
discussion seeking answers to society’s timeless questions. Not only can studying the
classics give you a greater understanding of history, it can give you a deeper
understanding of what is going on in the world today.
Alternatively, you could choose to study an academic subject that interests you. Learn
what makes a great writer, study historic architecture, become a religious scholar, or
perform science experiments in your basement. You can start to become an expert at
any age. If you’re in high school, there’s nothing stopping you from becoming the local
expert on jazz music. If you already graduated college, chances are you still didn’t get
the opportunity to study everything you wanted to know. This time, do it your way. No
need to follow a syllabus or wait for the group – study exactly what you want to know.
Or, perhaps you would like to develop a skill or a trade. Learn to frame a house, grow
herbs, or sew clothes. Practical, hands-on skills are no less valuable than academic
knowledge. Of course, don’t be surprised if your new-found cooking skills make you the
talk of the neighborhood. Bon Appétit.

If you ask the average resident of the planet earth about things that they
prefer mostly what would be the answer? The most usual answer would
probably be the wealth and success. But wealth and success do not come
up ust like that. I takes a lot of time, effort and, most importantly,
education and active learning in order to build the wealth and success.

Self-education is very important in the 21st century. Our grandparents
could imagine a world in which they finish the school and to the rest of
their life do the same thing at the same or very similar way. But even our
fathers felt the need for continuous education. Today the idea of
completion of education by graduation sounds more and more like a
utopia. Modern society, a society of knowledge, requires a continuous
education, at least until retirement. In fact you really have no choice you'll learn until your death, but for comfort - once you enter into
retirement, provided that it allows you to existence, you will learn just what
you want and as much as you want.



You can educate after the completion of formal education in two ways. One is that your
company you work for is sending you to education, courses, workshops and other events. But
not many people can acquire sufficient education on that way. The other way of continuous
education are learning during after hours, during weekends, leisure, or if possible a dedicated
time during the work. You can do it by reading the books, visit web seminars or exchanging
experiences with colleagues. This is particularly important in professions in which the scope
and focus of work relatively often change. IT is one of those professions.
You can educate after the completion of formal education in two ways. One is that your
company you work for is sending you to education, courses, workshops and other events. But
not many people can acquire sufficient education on that way. The other way of continuous
education are learning during after hours, during weekends, leisure, or if possible a dedicated
time during the work.
IT is an area that is rapidly changing and there is always something new appearing, a new item
or technology that require the expert to devote his time to study them. The field of IT is wide,
covering the immense amount of innovation and technology that is difficult to track. However, if
you want to remain competitive in the IT world, you must follow them. Not all, because it is not
possible. Even with specialized things it is sometimes difficult to keep up the pace.

IT is not the only professional field that requires self-education. Neither
the doctors are spared - new discoveries in medicine, new procedures,
new diagnostics, new drugs ... and doctors today have to learn throughout
their careers. In fact, it's easier to enumerate the profession in which
education more or less stops with graduation: cleaners, workers, manual,
chambermaids, ... Every profession that has had a more complex process
is subject to change, some faster, some slower.

It is therefore disturbing to see how self-education sometimes is not
appreciated. What is the alternative for education? Is that a sport bet or
lotto? Wining a horse race bet may help to some, but the odds are so low.

Alternatively, you can further educate and thus become more capable,
efficient and competitive. Your knowledge will enable you to progress in
relation to colleagues. It will open the door to career advancement toward
higher position and higher salary. It will bring you to needful things: wealth
and success.
 Improve memory
 Increase concentration
 Learn quicker and retain more
 When you need to study, cram, or sharpen your concentration for
peak mental performance, Super Learning is the sound solution.
Precision-engineered frequencies are harmonically layered in
soothing music. They guide your brain activity into a hyperreceptive state, where trigger phrases and key words are received
by the subconscious. As both hemispheres of the brain move into
perfect balance, frustrating mental blocks dissolve. You enter a
flow state of relaxed awareness where new information is easily
absorbed and stored in long-term memory.
The true physician has a Shakespearean breadth of interest in the wise and the foolish,
the proud and the humble, the stoic hero and the whining rogue.
–Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine
 Imagine if a modern physician, armed only with ancient
instruments, could somehow be transported to the Trojan
battlefield on the day Hector killed Patroclus. Leaving aside
practical concerns such as being brained by Hector, how would
the modern doctor measure up? Could a physician without tools
still practice medicine? Surely, Achilles would find no comfort in
hearing that in a few millennia Patroclus would not necessarily die
from his injuries. And in the face of Hector’s triumph, Achilles’
rage, and Patroclus’ deadly wounds, technique alone seems
inadequate, even if it were available and effective. The physician
would still need deeper sources of human wisdom than bodily
mastery alone could ever provide. But would our modern doctor’s
medical education prepare him for this encounter with passionate
souls and dying bodies?

Medicine is an ancient profession. It pre-dates modern science, just as suffering
pre-dates the modern arts that aim to ameliorate it. But what, if anything, still
abides in the medical vocation from previous eras? And granted the marvelous
advances afforded to medicine through modern science, are the goals of modern
medicine the same as modern science? Are physicians the same as scientists?

The obvious answer to this last question is no: physicians treat patients. They aim
to heal the afflicted, not simply to discover the truths of nature. But the close
relationship between modern medicine and modern science has made many
doctors think and act like scientists. Perhaps this is necessary, if they are to wield
the technical tools that only empirical science makes possible. But the
transformation of doctoring in the image of science may also obscure, in important
ways, the real character of the medical vocation. If we educate doctors solely or
largely as mechanics of the body, we may leave them unprepared for the human
encounter with the sick and desperate, the brave and dying, the healed and
grateful. And even if we equip them with the best medical tools of the age, we may
leave the physician partially naked on the wards.
Flexibility.
Modularity.
Economic efficiency.
The new role of teacher.
Specialized quality control of
education.
Use of specialized technology and
training are the main characteristics of
distance teaching

Of course, the education of modern doctors still reflects some genuine
understanding of the vocational differences between physicians and scientists.
One clear difference is that the physician is defined by action from the beginning.
Upon graduating from medical school, the final act before receiving one’s diploma
is taking an oath. The oath is usually some form of the Hippocratic Oath, despite
some post-Hippocratic innovations. And the most well known admonition—“first, do
no harm”—identifies the profession as concerned with action that potentially puts
both the physician and the patient in jeopardy. Practicing medicine involves high
stakes—the life and well-being of another—and thus requires an oath to act well.
Scientists are not asked to take an oath before beginning their work.

There is a second, related feature of medical training that distinguishes it from a
scientific education. In order to be licensed, the M.D. must complete an internship.
One year of practical work is required for the degree to be enacted. Of course,
most people pursue far more training if they intend to practice, but the point is that
action and experience are essential to the very definition of a doctor as a
credentialed professional.

Of course, the education of modern doctors still reflects some genuine
understanding of the vocational differences between physicians and scientists.
One clear difference is that the physician is defined by action from the beginning.
Upon graduating from medical school, the final act before receiving one’s diploma
is taking an oath. The oath is usually some form of the Hippocratic Oath, despite
some post-Hippocratic innovations. And the most well known admonition—“first, do
no harm”—identifies the profession as concerned with action that potentially puts
both the physician and the patient in jeopardy. Practicing medicine involves high
stakes—the life and well-being of another—and thus requires an oath to act well.
Scientists are not asked to take an oath before beginning their work.

There is a second, related feature of medical training that distinguishes it from a
scientific education. In order to be licensed, the M.D. must complete an internship.
One year of practical work is required for the degree to be enacted. Of course,
most people pursue far more training if they intend to practice, but the point is that
action and experience are essential to the very definition of a doctor as a
credentialed professional.

But what happens to the idealism that brings most young men and women to medicine? What
new ideas become operative? Somewhere after the internship and before the end of residency,
a new sense of honor and direction necessarily takes hold. The original desire to help people
takes shape amid pragmatic concerns about fellowships and jobs, and within the shared
system of praise and blame from one’s colleagues and superiors.

Doctors rely on one another, and most are well equipped morally to do so. Generally speaking,
physicians are bright, diligent, and compassionate people. And with few exceptions, we turn to
one another not simply for clinical expertise but for camaraderie and understanding in the face
of demanding work. Medicine is also remarkable for its self-governance. Individually, each
doctor is expected to bring self-control and sound judgment to each case, always informed by
the most current medical knowledge. Collectively, each hospital or clinic has well defined
norms and expectations that allow physicians to bring particular expertise to bear, with varying
opinions aired in what is (when done right) a remarkably well-run enterprise. The atmosphere is
organized yet dynamic, routinized yet open to novelty, intellectual yet tempered by practical
realities, confrontational yet civil. Add to this the nurses, technicians, and of course the patients
themselves and one has a broad, lively field for both intellectual and moral action. It is here that
many of us exercise our abilities as doctors in search of excellence. And like any activity
seeking excellence, there is the expectation of reward.

In various ways and with varying consequences, the doctor is motivated not only
by devotion to his patients, but also and sometimes especially by the quest for
honor and glory. Honor is typically bestowed by and within a given community, and
honor is surely a powerful force in medicine. Most physicians are accustomed to
outward recognition for academic excellence, and as the training continues, the
thirst for acclaim from one’s fellows persists. This is largely a good thing. To be
honored by one’s peers, who know better than anyone else what outstanding
achievement in the field requires, is a great reward. Yet to be so honored is also
something of a paradox. The fact that the honoring must come from “within the
ranks” necessarily limits the scope of the honor. The American College of
Cardiology is uniquely suited to honor the best cardiologists, giving such an award
unique stature. But the recipient can only find true honor from those similarly
excellent in cardiology, those who really know and understand his achievements.
As one advances in excellence, there is greater honor from fewer and fewer
people. To demonstrate the point, imagine a cardiologist being honored by a
national vote. Even if such a spectacle brought fame and fortune, the cardiologist
would know it was not a true reflection of excellence as a cardiologist. Yet precisely
because it comes from others, honor is limited to what the community of specialists
values.

Glory, on the other hand, travels beyond borders. It finds recognition not only in the eyes of
fellow experts but in the hearts of fellow human beings. Glorious deeds are worth talking about;
they are the basis of our best human stories; they strike a broader human chord. And unlike
honor, which is time-bound and limited to a few, glory is shared and elevates collectively. This
elevation can be transient or permanent. The hunger for glory can lead the doctor beyond the
technical confines of his field, or it can pervert his practice by causing him to forget what he
learned as a resident: patient first, self second.

Increasingly, honor within medicine comes in the form of scientific achievement. Although it is
an ancient profession, medicine is not immune to the spirit of the age. Academic hospitals are
increasingly dependent for resources on research dollars, which are largely provided by the
National Institutes of Health. An academic physician spends a lot of time writing grants in
search of funding. These grants sustain the research lab and pay the academician’s salary.
The academic hospital provides the space and the intellectual environment, but the investigator
is otherwise largely on his own, a research entrepreneur with patients on the side. Academic
physicians are like small business owners within the academic health center, able to remain
only as long as the grant support continues. Since medical students are taught mostly by
academic physicians (as opposed to community physicians), it makes sense that scientific
achievement would be emphasized. In this pedagogical environment, physicians and scientists
are slowly becoming less distinguishable, as both are shaped primarily by the “research
imperative.” This convergence is an apparently voluntary process, fueled by a natural search
for honor, and by the contemporary realities of modern, technological, institutional medicine.

Yet the moral virtue of the physician really takes shape and becomes manifest at the bedside,
not in the research laboratory. Patient by patient, if he is able to bring his Shakespearean
capacities to bear, the physician engages particular human stories. This is not the stuff of
science, but poetry. It revels in particularity, paradox, and the passions. The drama of individual
lives is disclosed to us, which is one of the privileges of practicing medicine. We see people at
their best and worst, stoic and vulnerable, devastated and elated. And if we pay attention, we
learn something in the process about being human. We recognize the brutality of disease, the
blessings of health, and the courage required to endure pain and face death. We also gain the
opportunity for glory, to reach beyond our own sources of honor, to participate in the drama of
mortal man seeking meaning. In this way, the physician can transcend the medical profession,
even as he participates in its more ancient traditions.

But even glory sometimes falls short of the ethic of the physician, dependent as glory is on
outward recognition. Virtue need not be visible to others to be present. Indeed, Aristotle’s
definition of happiness as a lifetime of activity in accordance with virtue (here applied to
medicine) likely comes closest to the truly happy physician qua physician. The day-to-day
dealings with patients provide us with the real occasions for acting well. And while glory might
motivate us toward virtue, it is not essential to being or becoming a truly good physician.

Yet this raises a profound question: What is essential to practicing medicine
virtuously? At a recent meeting of the President’s Council on Bioethics, Dr. Daniel
Foster offered a tacit answer: competence and compassion, but competence first
of all. In our world, competence means skill in diagnosis and treatment, using the
best techniques that modern medical technology has to offer. The virtuous doctor
must be a master scientist. He must understand the materiality of the person.

Yet while medicine is functionally dependent on science for its tools, the ends of
medicine involve more than the triumph over disease; good doctoring also
encompasses the spiritual and moral struggles of patients living with uncertainty
and distress. When faced with relatively simple ailments such as pneumonia, these
broader humanistic considerations might remain out of view. Scientific competence
is enough. But when we face a disease we cannot cure or even hold at bay, the
physician’s job does not end. Virtue is still possible for the doctor, so long as we
understand what distinguishes medicine from science. This raises an even deeper
question: Does the scientific education of doctors strengthen or undermine their
capacity for non-scientific virtue, for the work of diagnosing and healing souls, for
the burdens of the “physician as priest”?

Obviously, it is the material response that patients first seek from us, hoping a pill
or procedure can restore them to good health. But it is also clear that natural
science cannot be the only form of help we bring the sick—even when our
interventions cure them, and especially when the body’s incurable ailments afflict
the soul. It would be the very opposite of wisdom to believe that doctors alone can
heal the souls of their patients. Yet to conceive of the patient as materiality alone is
a kind of degradation, even if that is what the patient wants.

Since human beings will always be mortal and suffering, medicine will often be
inadequate and always incomplete. The truly wise response to suffering may not
be the righteous, indignant call for more science but an acknowledgement that no
matter the disease, the physician pledges to see the patient through to the end—
come what may, cure or no cure, albeit with the best available resources at the
present time. And our own limitations as doctors, instead of being simply occasions
for disappointment, might also be occasions for reflection on man’s fate. To this
end, we need to bring into view the necessary limitations of natural science with
regard to larger human questions. We need to recall, if briefly, the origins of the
modern scientific project, so we can better understand its insufficiency when it
comes to preparing doctors for their work.

Power and Impotence

The original defense of natural science, by men like Descartes and Spinoza, was not so much
a refutation as a quiet beheading of preceding philosophies. That is, modern science refutes
metaphysical questions not by addressing them but by ignoring them. Its view of nature is
purely material, devoid of purpose or meaning. Natural science tells us how things work, but
not what they are or why they do what they do. It is fair to say that modern science does not
even have a definition of nature, including human nature. The project of the modern natural
scientist is the material inquiry into objects that are subject to inquiry through material
manipulation.

The tool for mechanical manipulation is technology. The original technology of modern science
was geometry, because geometry is the science of space. That is, it provides an account of
nature as extension in space. The difference between the ancient and modern view of
geometry is instructive, since it reveals a great deal about the modern use of technology. For
ancients, like Euclid, geometric truths were investigated and demonstrated in “theorems,” or
human efforts to give an account of reality. In contrast, modern geometry is concerned with
“problems,” or difficulties to be solved. Problems are technical issues, not theoretical ones.
Indeed, one can solve problems without any knowledge of the theory that underlies a question.
Nature can be mathematized, and technologies can be developed to manipulate nature,
unencumbered by theoretical questions. And most problems have a material component that is
potentially (if only partially) amenable to a material solution.

A related distinction is the difference between wonder and curiosity. For Aristotle, wisdom begins in wonder.
For modern man, knowledge begins with curiosity. Wonder is an activity of beholding an object, allowing it to
disclose itself. Its fruits might be described as the respectful disclosure of the beheld to the beholder. The
implication is that the beheld has something to teach us. We must select our subjects carefully and as things
worthy of wonder they must be treated with humility and gratitude. Curiosity describes a very different
disposition. Curiosity is indiscriminate. Any object is a potential object for curiosity. Moreover, curiosity is
famously not an exclusively human act. It knows no limits, and enforces no limits on the curious. One can be
curious about the moon or about pornography. The same cannot be said for wonder. Souls can wonder. Cats
are curious.

Interestingly, as scientific methods of investigation become increasingly sophisticated and our perspective on
nature increasingly minute, it is not only metaphysical understanding that is set aside. Everyday experience
itself becomes less and less a part of the scientific account of things. Descartes introduced radical skepticism,
the idea that the senses can be deceived and therefore cannot be relied upon. Today, the plane of experience
of the scientist is the molecular plane for biology, the atomic and even subatomic for physics. Common
experience itself is regarded skeptically, and we instead look to the molecular realm to provide an account. The
chain of causality continues to be pushed backward in search of more fundamental, more common
mechanisms. The current bedrock in biology seems to be DNA, through which modern science hopes to
provide an account of the downstream events that begin with genetically initiated events. There we hope to find
what is really going on. As a consequence, the natural scientist spends the working day away from human
action. He is in no better a position to be a citizen—or to diagnose and heal souls—than when he woke up.

The proof of the claim that nature is best known through its material manipulation lies in the success of modern
technology: By simply attempting to understand and manipulate the world as material, and by ignoring
questions of purpose and meaning, the application of modern science has transformed the world. Indeed, the
success of the scientific project in terms of change is its very justification, and this was always intended to be
the case. Things are getting better all the time. The proper response to our condition is thus a material
response, one which eases the burden of man’s estate. Instead of providing an account of the whole,
philosophy was beheaded in favor of more practical purposes. Rather than argue about the nature of the good
life, man put nature to work in service of our human, all too human, ends.

This scientific outlook requires a certain type of scientific education—one that carves up nature into a series of
empirical inquiries (“research projects”) aimed at producing new types of beneficial manipulations
(“technological progress”). And this type of education—hyper-specialized, forward-looking, focused on parts
more than wholes—shapes souls of a certain sort, including the souls of doctors whose educations focus
largely on the mechanical workings of the body.

In this scientific milieu, the sorts of questions that avail themselves of empirical inquiry become the only
questions worth asking—or at least the kinds of questions that dominate the attention of aspiring doctors.
Previous questions such as the nature of the good or the meaning of suffering are not so much refuted as set
aside in favor of studying the body as a matter of engineering. In subtle or not so subtle ways, the young
doctor-as-scientist learns that his more natural questions are at worst foolish, or at best a quagmire of
subjectivity to be avoided. In the end, the scientific enterprise pares down the scope of inquiry so radically that
it is hard to imagine a worse education for a young soul: material, devoid of spirit, and instrumental; yet also
powerful, sophisticated, and unabashed in its absence of self-understanding.

The Moral Education of Physicians

Obviously, no one is just a scientist—certainly not the doctor, which is precisely the point.
Scientists are also citizens, parents, children, and spouses. But the scientist’s beliefs about the
meaning of science often go unexamined; such reflection is surely not part of advanced
scientific training in biology, physics, or medicine. As a result, scientists undergo a truncated
moral education, one that significantly limits their ability to evaluate their own enterprise
critically and honestly. And as physicians adopt an increasingly scientific worldview, the
medical profession risks becoming inarticulate and enfeebled in the face of sickness and
suffering and the whole human drama that no doctor can avoid.

No curriculum can easily address this problem, and no regimen of reading can supply doctors
with wisdom. But the humanities deserve a more central place than they now have in the
education of physicians. To this end, I propose a simple, if radical, addition to the medical
school education—one that might help future doctors acquire or recapture a shared human
voice. In addition to the standard medical prerequisites, students would study four books.
Which books these are could be debated, but after being agreed upon they would not change.
My own list would be the following: Plato’s Republic for an introduction to questions of justice;
Aristotle’s Physics for an account of nature that is not vacuous; Dostoevsky’s The Brothers
Karamazov for a poetic portrait of man; and Shakespeare’s King Lear for all of the above. The
students would be tested for mastery of these works just as they are tested for mastery of the
sciences. This would ensure that everyone had at least a minimum grasp of the larger tradition
that gave rise to natural science and a context for understanding its existence and meaning.

Think how our understanding of the aging patient would be enlarged with the image of Lear
made part of our psyches, or how our approach to the dilemmas of allocating medical
resources would be enriched by wrestling with the political questions raised in the Republic.
And while it may seem odd to believe that our scientific education is disserved by ignoring
Aristotle’s Physics, the limitations of modern science’s purposeless and partial account of
nature would become more clear by reacquainting ourselves with his purposeful account of the
whole. At its best, this humanistic education would help doctors at the bedside, by forcing them
to grapple with the kinds of existential questions that their patients cannot avoid.

The early physicians could only respond to the cries of their patients as fellow human beings,
sharing their previous experiences of the suffering of others, helping to usher the newly afflicted
through their own struggle. In the process, if they listened and observed carefully, physicians
gained access to the glories and failures of their patients’ lives. This profession brought forth
stories rich as any literature, perhaps at times even reminiscent of a Trojan battlefield, at least
insofar as it stirs the opportunity for excellence with the call to human action. Today, doctors
are both more powerful and more deaf. They are far less helpless in the face of suffering, yet
they often cannot hear the cries that evoke no possibility of remedy. A more humanistic
education might heal the physician’s deafness. It will not make treating the untreatable any
easier, but it may at least leave the doctor less naked on the wards.