Return-Path: Delivered-To: alvarochf@traceseis.com Received: from cs510.bluehost.com by cs510.bluehost.com with LMTP id UN2hHChizWhfyAoAWiBQxw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:01:12 -0600 Return-path: Envelope-to: alvarochf@traceseis.com Delivery-date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:01:12 -0600 Received: from m244-13.mailgun.net ([159.112.244.13]:51266) by cs510.bluehost.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uzbfj-000000037un-36SG for alvarochf@traceseis.com; Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:01:12 -0600 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg2.substack.com; q=dns/txt; s=mailo; t=1758290455; x=1758297655; h=List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: List-Archive: List-Owner: Reply-To: In-Reply-To: References: sender: sender: Date: Message-Id: To: To: From: From: Subject: Subject: Content-Type: Mime-Version; bh=drpPiMWi8X15eGuVXCpe4ky/udfkcFrqP/JTtn7WCIc=; b=CnD3HkhQDdgKnIPiCuRM5Z0s5+3QP01zP8OzMPOkzVAc1yHmlLKvXzJT5T95TOSzyNomlZog91FD5lLTxbdEutox6j2QQIrTWR+OaqXdgBnjf6FHHK9UceCWGz0pdcMOEaoPZThYI8ZKKtbFWGRx/FIxL6a5kAVXh5dCOpSETlM= X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI3MDdlYyIsImFsdmFyb2NoZkB0cmFjZXNlaXMuY29tIiwiNGQxODU4Il0= Received: by 4fb1456b20546d71a9572f856743a53f1bb2e288d0456a2965fca87d985337f5 with HTTP id 68cd621676d49105a7ebc0a9; Fri, 19 Sep 2025 14:00:53 GMT X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 159.112.244.13 X-Mailgun-Batch-Id: 68cd6216bfab9af2fcbefe44 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="fbdcdfbaa56e718f528b222053ba7b059079a26ba0cba31475cb89e032bc" Subject: Learning and Authentic Learning in the Age of AI From: Cosmos Institute To: alvarochf@traceseis.com X-Mailgun-Tag: post X-Mailgun-Track-Clicks: false Message-Id: <20250919140038.3.bbd393f58b2d7e25@mg2.substack.com> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 14:00:38 +0000 Feedback-ID: post-173425506:cat-post:pub-2225794:substack sender: Cosmos Institute References: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Cosmos Institute List-Owner: List-URL: List-Archive: List-Id: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click X-Mailgun-Variables: {"category": "post", "email_generated_at": "1758290453749", "is_freemail": "true", "post_audience": "everyone", "post_id": "173425506", "post_type": "newsletter", "pub_community_enabled": "true", "publication_id": "2225794", "subdomain": "cosmosinstitute", "user_id": "347258985"} --fbdcdfbaa56e718f528b222053ba7b059079a26ba0cba31475cb89e032bc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable View this post on the web at https://blog.cosmos-institute.org/p/learning-a= nd-authentic-learning-in This is a guest post by Zachary Gartenberg, a tutor at St. John's College i= n Annapolis. If you want to pitch us an article, please send us a suggestio= n using this form [ https://substack.com/redirect/84c8d59d-b665-4a8d-b4fe-e= 4ad63c0ad1a?j=3DeyJ1IjoiNXFxeXF4In0.h9dEDbGj64cTNudluPwbMYWklSu8UKGoFv6eWS-= HyoA ]. Much of the contemporary discourse about AI=E2=80=99s effects on writing, e= ducation, and cognition has taken on a declarative tone. We are told what t= he future will bring, what students will lose, and what machines will repla= ce. But this is not obviously a time for declarations. It is a time to ask questions =E2=80=93 carefully, seriously, and without p= resuming that we already know what is at stake. What is at risk is not just= the authority of teachers or the fate of the humanities, but the intelligi= bility of learning as something more than adaptive performance. Among the questions we must ask is whether something essential is being obs= cured. Not simply by AI=E2=80=99s practical disruptions, but by the model o= f learning that machine learning makes newly visible and dominant. The para= digm of optimization =E2=80=93 of iterative improvement through feedback = =E2=80=93 has become a background assumption for how we design, measure, an= d describe learning, even in human contexts. But does this model capture wh= at matters most in our deepest experiences of understanding? Is learning me= rely a refinement of performance? Or can it also be understood as a mode of= orientation: a posture toward the not=E2=80=91yet=E2=80=91known, a practic= e shaped by inward responsibility, difficulty, and directedness toward some= thing beyond utility or output? These questions became palpable for me during my first year of teaching at = St. John=E2=80=99s College, a small liberal arts institution with no depart= ments or majors, where students pursue a common curriculum rooted in the cl= ose reading and discussion of foundational texts. The student essays I read= were often hesitant, raw, or syntactically uneven. But their awkwardness r= eminded me that these were projects undertaken at the student=E2=80=99s ini= tiative, for the purpose of working out, however provisionally, something t= hat mattered. I never suspected a student of submitting AI=E2=80=91generate= d work. But if someone had, I am not sure it would have mattered in the way= most discussions assume. Whatever tools may have played a role, the essays= bore the marks of being authored in a deeper sense. The signs of explorato= ry posture, interruptions of thought, and patterns of struggle that accompa= ny the attempt to learn something for oneself were unmistakable. Learning as Optimization Machine learning systems embody a model of learning built from data, comput= ation, and feedback. To take them seriously is to ask what exactly happens = when a machine =E2=80=9Clearns.=E2=80=9D At the center stands the artificia= l neural network: a layered structure of computational units loosely inspir= ed by biological neurons. Such networks do not replicate human cognition, b= ut they exploit a powerful analogy =E2=80=93 intelligence arising from stru= cture rather than introspection. Each unit applies weights and biases to it= s inputs, transforms them, and passes them forward. Learning consists of ad= justing those internal parameters in response to error, a process governed = by gradient descent where a model minimizes loss between predicted and corr= ect values. One might picture it as a fog=E2=80=91shrouded descent through = a landscape of possibilities, nudging step by step toward lower error witho= ut ever seeing the whole. What emerges is a model not of conscious grasp bu= t of refinement through feedback =E2=80=93 an astonishingly successful simu= lation of learning, even as the question of whether it entails understandin= g remains open. Deep learning systems echo something true in human experience. We often mov= e from particulars to patterns, from fragments to form. Learning can feel l= ike the slow tuning of attention until the shape of a domain becomes palpab= le. This picture is compelling in part because it scales: with more data an= d deeper models, performance improves. On this account, intelligence is not= a flash of insight but an ongoing sensitivity to correction and constraint= =2E Yet as a cultural picture of human learning, optimization is not neutral. I= t has become a kind of default imagination across domains. In schools, adap= tive platforms promise to optimize progress through algorithmically tailore= d tasks and just=E2=80=91in=E2=80=91time feedback. In self=E2=80=91help cul= ture, habit trackers and productivity apps invite us to engineer ourselves = by data: optimize sleep, optimize attention, optimize emotional resilience.= On social media, recommendation systems =E2=80=9Clearn=E2=80=9D preference= s by reinforcement to retrain attention. The shared promise is frictionless= ness. Difficulty =E2=80=93 confusion, false starts, frustration =E2=80=93 c= omes to look like mere drag. With the right scaffold or loop, the struggle = can be smoothed away =E2=80=93 and, it is assumed, with no loss to learning= itself. But our deepest experiences of learning often resist that picture. Sometime= s learning improves performance; sometimes it complicates it. A scientist r= ecognizes the limitations of a cherished model. A friend hears a hard truth= and must let a long=E2=80=91held self=E2=80=91image die. A student discove= rs that an inherited conviction cannot survive questioning. In these cases,= learning is not optimization but reorientation =E2=80=93 an interior turni= ng that changes the one who learns. Such learning is not frictionless. It i= nvolves exposure to what one would rather not see, and a willingness to bea= r the costs of seeing it. The contemporary mood oscillates between enthusiasm for optimization and un= ease before its implications. Consider the recent suggestion, in public ess= ays and private conversations alike, that the humanities may survive AI not= by defending their utility but by retreating into sensibility: a posture o= f witness, a cultivated vulnerability before loss. There is something admir= able in refusing panic or nostalgia. Yet the mood leaves unsettled the very= thing at stake. What, precisely, has been lost? Is it the outsourcing of t= asks once done by scholars and students? Or something deeper =E2=80=93 an e= rosion of our ability to say what learning is and why it matters? If the la= tter, then the task is not to mourn but to clarify. The optimization model gives an answer to the conditions of learning. Speci= fy the inputs, design the architecture, supply the feedback, and the system= will learn. The humanist picture asks a different kind of question: how do= es one become the kind of agent for whom understanding is possible? What po= sture of inquiry is required? What relation must a learner bear to what is = learned such that the learning is not merely an accumulation of correct out= puts but a transformation of the knower? Plato=E2=80=99s Meno: From True Belief to Knowledge Plato=E2=80=99s Meno begins with a question about whether virtue can be tau= ght. But the dialogue soon becomes a meditation on what learning entails. I= ts most famous puzzle =E2=80=93 Meno=E2=80=99s paradox =E2=80=93 puts the p= oint sharply. If you know what you are looking for, you need not inquire. I= f you do not, you cannot: you would not recognize it even if you found it. = The implication is that learning appears either trivial or impossible. Socr= ates answers, not with a definition, but with an enactment. Learning, he su= ggests, is not a transaction of facts but a posture of inquiry, a willingne= ss to let questioning change you. This becomes vivid in the exchange with Meno=E2=80=99s uneducated slave. So= crates poses a geometrical problem: how to construct a square with twice th= e area of a given square. The boy answers first by intuition: double the si= de. That, of course, yields a square four times as large. Under further que= stioning, with lines drawn and possibilities tested, the boy notices a new = path: the diagonal of the original square, used as the side of a new square= , yields the desired doubling. What matters here is not that the boy reache= s the =E2=80=9Cright answer=E2=80=9D without being told. It is that his ear= lier picture of the situation is exposed as inadequate, and that he learns = to stand differently in relation to the problem =E2=80=93 to look again, to= be corrected, and to sustain the tension of not knowing long enough for a = better grasp to emerge. Plato calls this movement =E2=80=9Crecollection=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 not beca= use the slave recovers a previously stored fact, but because genuine learni= ng feels like remembering something you somehow already knew how to see. Re= collection names a regained capacity for recognition. The boy=E2=80=99s min= d is awakened to the structure that was available all along but occluded by= a hasty picture. The point is not mystical; it is phenomenological. Insigh= t feels like remembering because it restores us to ourselves as knowers. The dialogue ends with a different, equally important distinction. Socrates= compares true beliefs to the marvellously lifelike statues of Daedalus: th= ey are valuable, but they run away unless tied down. Knowledge, by contrast= , is true belief =E2=80=9Ctied down by an account of the reason why=E2=80= =9D - aitias logismos. The difference is not primarily in accuracy but in o= wnership. A belief becomes knowledge when it is held non=E2=80=91accidental= ly, when the knower can give a reason that renders its truth intelligible t= o herself. Tying down does not mean discovering a mechanical cause; it mean= s understanding what makes the claim hold and being able to stand behind it= =2E This =E2=80=9Ctying down=E2=80=9D is both epistemic and ethical. To know, i= n Plato=E2=80=99s sense, is to bear responsibility for what one asserts. Un= tethered true beliefs may guide us well enough, but their guidance is accid= ental; we do not possess them so much as they possess us. Knowledge is clai= med rather than merely had. It requires the learner to become, in some sens= e, the cause of her belief =E2=80=93 to be able to say not only that it is = so, but why it must be so. Placed alongside modern machine learning, the distinction presses uncomfort= ably. A neural network can converge on highly accurate predictions. It can = be probed, sometimes, for post=E2=80=91hoc explanations; and techniques in = interpretability aim to recover reasons from models. But the system does no= t appear to own its outputs. It does not stand in a reason=E2=80=91giving r= elation to what it says. Its correctness is not the achievement of an agent= who can be addressed, challenged, and held to account. If Plato is right, = then what machines do =E2=80=93 even at superhuman levels of performance = =E2=80=93 remains at the level of true belief. That is not an insult. It is= a way of marking the difference between prediction and understanding. The pedagogical implications are equally sharp. If knowledge is tied=E2=80= =91down true belief, then the task of a teacher is not to deposit right ans= wers but to cultivate a poise in the learner: the readiness to inquire well= , to live with perplexity, to give and demand reasons. Socrates models this= by asking questions that do not humiliate or coerce, but invite the studen= t into responsibility. The goal is not speed of convergence but the formati= on of a knower for whom convergence, when it comes, is not accidental. In a= n optimization culture obsessed with outcomes, this is a reminder that the = interior stance of the learner is part of what learning is. Augustine=E2=80=99s The Teacher: Signs and Illumination If Plato dramatizes learning as a public inquiry, Augustine turns our atten= tion to the interior conditions that make understanding possible. The Teach= er is framed as a dialogue with his son Adeodatus about whether teaching is= even possible. Augustine=E2=80=99s starting claim is deliberately paradoxi= cal: words do not teach; at most, they remind. Language offers signs, but t= he grasp of what those signs signify must occur within the learner. The tea= cher points; the student sees =E2=80=93 or does not. Consider Augustine=E2=80=99s small but telling example. Suppose I try to te= ach you what =E2=80=9Cwalking=E2=80=9D means by performing it. You watch; I= walk faster to make the action clear. But you might then think walking is = hurrying, and be misled. The demonstration is not self=E2=80=91interpreting= =2E Signs are always liable to confusio= n. This is not merely a problem of amb= iguous words. It is a structural fact about communication: the meaning of a= sign is not in the sign. It is in the act of recognition by which a mind s= ees what is meant. From here Augustine draws a radical conclusion about the locus of learning.= When we =E2=80=9Clearn from words,=E2=80=9D we either already know what th= ey signify =E2=80=93 in which case we are being reminded =E2=80=93 or we do= not, in which case we cannot be taught by them alone. Understanding is an = event of inward illumination. For Augustine theologically, the inner teache= r is Christ =E2=80=93 the Truth that instructs every mind from within. For = readers who do not share his theology, the point can be expressed more gene= rally: genuine learning involves an encounter with intelligibility that is = not reducible to external transmission. There is a moment in understanding = that cannot be handed over; it must occur as recognition. This interiority is not privatism. Augustine is equally insistent that trut= h is public. When two people recognize the same truth, they do not do so by= peering into one another=E2=80=99s minds, but by turning toward a reality = available to both. Hence the striking claim elsewhere in the Confessions: i= f we both see that something is true, we see it not in me nor in you, but i= n a light above our minds. The language is metaphysical, but the experience= is common. Think of the moment in a seminar when a difficult passage click= s for several readers at once. The recognition is intensely personal and un= mistakably shared. Placed alongside AI, Augustine=E2=80=99s account reframes the worry. Artifi= cial systems generate signs =E2=80=93 text, images, speech. They can be pow= erful engines of reminder, redescription, and juxtaposition. But they do no= t recognize truth. They do not awaken to meaning. The question, then, is no= t whether machines will replace teachers, but whether we will remember what= teaching asks of us: to arrange signs so that recognition can occur, while= never confusing the sign with what is signified. On this view, AI can serv= e learning =E2=80=93 but only if the learner remains the agent of understan= ding. The danger is not that we will be fooled by synthetic language. It is= that we will forget the difference between words and what they are for. Augustine also gives us a richer account of memory than the mere storage of= data. In his reflections, memory is the living archive in which our past i= s not simply kept but interpreted; it is the site where impressions become = parts of a life. To learn authentically is to re=E2=80=91pattern memory: to= reorder what we recall and how it matters. Machines store and retrieve. Th= ey do not remember in this sense, because they are not selves for whom anyt= hing can matter. This is not an argument for human uniqueness so much as a = reminder of the sort of being a learner is. A Constellation Called =E2=80=9CAuthenticity=E2=80=9D But what is =E2=80=9Cauthentic learning=E2=80=9D? The phrase is awkward bec= ause it tempts a binary =E2=80=93 real versus fake =E2=80=93 precisely the = polarity this inquiry tries to resist. Perhaps authenticity names not an es= sence but a family resemblance, a constellation of experiences that differ = in form and context yet share certain features. Among these are orientation= (the posture of inquiry that refuses to collapse the question prematurely)= , responsibility (the willingness to stand behind what one claims), and int= erior disruption (the way understanding dislodges us before it settles us).= These are not outcomes but stances. They describe the relation a learner b= ears to what is learned and to the sources that make learning possible. Seen in this light, the optimization model is not false but partial. It des= cribes how a system can become more accurate at a task by iterative adjustm= ent. It does not describe what it is like to come to know in such a way tha= t the knowledge becomes yours. Plato=E2=80=99s language of tying down and A= ugustine=E2=80=99s language of illumination point to that interior achievem= ent. They name a movement from correctness to possession, from output to un= derstanding. The point is not to romanticize struggle or to reject efficien= cy. It is to insist that the struggle is often where responsibility is acqu= ired, and that efficiency can be a vice when it insulates us from the risks= on which insight depends. If this is right, then the presence of powerful artificial systems is a dou= ble-edged sword. Precisely because machines can so fluently simulate certai= n performances, they force us to articulate what, in those performances, we= care about. If a model can produce an essay indistinguishable in surface f= eatures from a competent student=E2=80=99s, then the work of teaching canno= t be reduced to enforcing prohibitions or detecting anomalies. It must beco= me the work that Socrates and Augustine model: cultivating poise, demanding= reasons, arranging signs for recognition, and inviting students to tie dow= n what they say. These reflections are not merely theoretical. They suggest concrete practic= es for classrooms, institutions, and personal study: Design for reasons, not just results. Ask for explanations, comparisons, an= d counterexamples that require aitias logismos =E2=80=93 an account of the = reason why. Invite students to identify where a claim could be wrong and wh= at would change their minds. Make room for productive difficulty. Build assignments that include stages = of confusion and revision: interviews with primary texts, problem notebooks= , seminar minutes that track the evolution of a question rather than its an= swer. Treat perplexity as part of the method. Stage recognition. Use AI as a tool for juxtaposition =E2=80=93 summaries t= o dispute, alternative framings to compare, synthetic outlines to reorganiz= e. But let the decisive act be the student=E2=80=99s: the moment of saying = what follows and why it matters. Attend to voice. Encourage writing that shows the marks of ownership: hesit= ations that are earned, commitments that are justified, references that are= integrated into a living question. Evaluate for the quality of relation to= sources, not only for correctness or fluency. Develop interpretive memory. Ask students to curate a portfolio of passages= , problems, and questions that continue to inspire them, with periodic retu= rns. The aim is to cultivate the Augustinian work of recollection, not the = mechanical work of storage. Cultivate shared seeing. In seminar, pause when something seems clear and a= sk: what exactly did we just see? Where do we see it in the text or the pro= blem? How could it be otherwise? Make public the interior act of recognitio= n. These are more than just protections against technology; they are practices= of freedom in the presence of it. They treat students as potential knowers= capable of responsibility. What We Keep in View The optimization paradigm will continue to transform our tools and our inst= itutions. It will also tempt us to take performance as the whole of learnin= g. Plato and Augustine do not deliver a counter=E2=80=91paradigm so much as= they restore what a paradigm cannot hold: the posture of inquiry, the bear= ing of reasons, the interior act of recognition. They remind us that learni= ng is not only a matter of getting things right, but of being transformed i= nto the kind of person for whom getting them right is not accidental. If =E2=80=9Cauthenticity=E2=80=9D remains useful, it is because it can name= this quality of relation =E2=80=93 a fidelity to difficulty, responsibilit= y, and shared truth. Authentic learning is not a property of an output. It = is a way a knower stands. Machines will continue to refine the outputs. The= y may even help us see more quickly what we could not see before. But they = cannot relieve us of the work of tying down our beliefs, or of turning towa= rd the light by which we come to see. That work remains ours, and it is, st= ill, worth learning how to do. Unsubscribe https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLmNvc21= vcy1pbnN0aXR1dGUub3JnL2FjdGlvbi9kaXNhYmxlX2VtYWlsP3Rva2VuPWV5SjFjMlZ5WDJsa0= lqb3pORGN5TlRnNU9EVXNJbkJ2YzNSZmFXUWlPakUzTXpReU5UVXdOaXdpYVdGMElqb3hOelU0T= Wprd05EVXpMQ0psZUhBaU9qRTNPRGs0TWpZME5UTXNJbWx6Y3lJNkluQjFZaTB5TWpJMU56azBJ= aXdpYzNWaUlqb2laR2x6WVdKc1pWOWxiV0ZwYkNKOS41VWJYdUtua3FKWWEwUUhudU9pNUtfM1R= YRnNpQzFMcjJQRHVqTGtWRTVvIiwicCI6MTczNDI1NTA2LCJzIjoyMjI1Nzk0LCJmIjp0cnVlLC= J1IjozNDcyNTg5ODUsImlhdCI6MTc1ODI5MDQ1MywiZXhwIjoyMDczODY2NDUzLCJpc3MiOiJwd= WItMCIsInN1YiI6ImxpbmstcmVkaXJlY3QifQ.4ceErAG1rn_dfU8IOako94SxV1IEJZ_xU6H-N= hpS084? --fbdcdfbaa56e718f528b222053ba7b059079a26ba0cba31475cb89e032bc Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Learning and Authentic L= earning in the Age of AI3D""
Optimization and Orientation in Plato and Augustine
͏ &nbs= p;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&#= 847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= 47;     ­͏     ­͏     = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  =   ­͏     ­͏     ­T= 7;     ­͏     ­͏     &= #173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   =   ­͏     ­͏     ­͏= ;     ­͏     ­͏     &#= 173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &= #8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏=     ­͏     ­͏     = 73;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &#= 8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ =     ­͏     ­͏     = 3;͏     ­͏     ­͏   = 199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &= nbsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ;͏     ­͏     ­͏   Q= 99; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &n= bsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ͏     ­͏     ­͏   ̳= 9; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nb= sp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&= #847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nbs= p;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&#= 847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= 47;     ­͏     ­͏     = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  =   ­͏     ­͏     ­T= 7;     ­͏     ­͏     &= #173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   =   ­͏     ­͏     ­͏= ;     ­͏     ­͏     &#= 173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &= #8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏=     ­͏     ­͏     = 73;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &#= 8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ =     ­͏     ­͏     = 3;͏     ­͏     ­͏   = 199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &= nbsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ;͏     ­͏     ­͏   Q= 99; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &n= bsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ͏     ­͏     ­͏   ̳= 9; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nb= sp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&= #847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nbs= p;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&#= 847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= 47;     ­͏     ­͏     = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  =   ­͏     ­͏     ­T= 7;     ­͏     ­͏     &= #173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   =   ­͏     ­͏     ­͏= ;     ­͏     ­͏     &#= 173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &= #8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏=     ­͏     ­͏     = 73;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &#= 8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ =     ­͏     ­͏     = 3;͏     ­͏     ­͏   = 199; ­͏     ­
=
=
Forwarded this email? Sub= scribe here for more

Learning and Authentic Learning in the Age of AI

Optimiza= tion and Orientation in Plato and Augustine

Cosmos = Institute
<= tbody>=
 
<= td style=3D"vertical-align:middle;">
3D""
3D""
3D""
3D""
READ IN APP
 

This is a guest post by Zachary Gartenberg, a tutor at St. John's College= in Annapolis. If you want to pitch us an article, please send us a suggest= ion using this form.

3D""
John Johnstone, A School for Boys and Gi= rls (after Jan Steen) from 1670

Muc= h of the contemporary discourse about AI’s effects on writing, educat= ion, and cognition has taken on a declarative tone. We are told what the fu= ture will bring, what students will lose, and what machines will replace. B= ut this is not obviously a time for declarations.

It is a t= ime to ask questions – carefully, seriously, and without presuming th= at we already know what is at stake. What is at risk is not just the author= ity of teachers or the fate of the humanities, but the intelligibility of l= earning as something more than adaptive performance.

Among = the questions we must ask is whether something essential is being obscured.= Not simply by AI’s practical disruptions, but by the model of learni= ng that machine learning makes newly visible and dominant. The paradigm of = optimization – of iterative improvement through feedback – has = become a background assumption for how we design, measure, and describe lea= rning, even in human contexts. But does this model capture what matters mos= t in our deepest experiences of understanding? Is learning merely a refinem= ent of performance? Or can it also be understood as a mode of orientation: = a posture toward the not‑yet‑known, a practice shaped by inward= responsibility, difficulty, and directedness toward something beyond utili= ty or output?

These questions became palpable for me during= my first year of teaching at St. John’s College, a small liberal art= s institution with no departments or majors, where students pursue a common= curriculum rooted in the close reading and discussion of foundational text= s. The student essays I read were often hesitant, raw, or syntactically une= ven. But their awkwardness reminded me that these were projects undertaken = at the student’s initiative, for the purpose of working out, however = provisionally, something that mattered. I never suspected a student of subm= itting AI‑generated work. But if someone had, I am not sure it would = have mattered in the way most discussions assume. Whatever tools may have p= layed a role, the essays bore the marks of being authored in a deeper sense= =2E The signs of exploratory posture, i= nterruptions of thought, and patterns=20= of struggle that accompany the attempt to learn something for oneself were = unmistakable.

Learning as Optimization

Machine learning systems embody a model of learning built f= rom data, computation, and feedback. To take them seriously is to ask what = exactly happens when a machine “learns.” At the center stands t= he artificial neural network: a layered structure of computational units lo= osely inspired by biological neurons. Such networks do not replicate human = cognition, but they exploit a powerful analogy – intelligence arising= from structure rather than introspection. Each unit applies weights and bi= ases to its inputs, transforms them, and passes them forward. Learning cons= ists of adjusting those internal parameters in response to error, a process= governed by gradient descent where a model minimizes loss between predicte= d and correct values. One might picture it as a fog‑shrouded descent = through a landscape of possibilities, nudging step by step toward lower err= or without ever seeing the whole. What emerges is a model not of conscious = grasp but of refinement through feedback – an astonishingly successfu= l simulation of learning, even as the question of whether it entails unders= tanding remains open.

Deep learning systems echo something = true in human experience. We often move from particulars to patterns, from = fragments to form. Learning can feel like the slow tuning of attention unti= l the shape of a domain becomes palpable. This picture is compelling in par= t because it scales: with more data and deeper models, performance improves= =2E On this account, intelligence is no= t a flash of insight but an ongoing se= nsitivity to correction and constraint.

Yet as a cultural p= icture of human learning, optimization is not neutral. It has become a kind= of default imagination across domains. In schools, adaptive platforms prom= ise to optimize progress through algorithmically tailored tasks and just= 209;in‑time feedback. In self‑help culture, habit trackers and = productivity apps invite us to engineer ourselves by data: optimize sleep, = optimize attention, optimize emotional resilience. On social media, recomme= ndation systems “learn” preferences by reinforcement to retrain= attention. The shared promise is frictionlessness. Difficulty – conf= usion, false starts, frustration – comes to look like mere drag. With= the right scaffold or loop, the struggle can be smoothed away – and,= it is assumed, with no loss to learning itself.

But our de= epest experiences of learning often resist that picture. Sometimes learning= improves performance; sometimes it complicates it. A scientist recognizes = the limitations of a cherished model. A friend hears a hard truth and must = let a long‑held self‑image die. A student discovers that an inh= erited conviction cannot survive questioning. In these cases, learning is n= ot optimization but reorientation – an interior turning that changes = the one who learns. Such learning is not frictionless. It involves exposure= to what one would rather not see, and a willingness to bear the costs of s= eeing it.

The contemporary mood oscillates between enthusia= sm for optimization and unease before its implications. Consider the recent= suggestion, in public essays and private conversations alike, that the hum= anities may survive AI not by defending their utility but by retreating int= o sensibility: a posture of witness, a cultivated vulnerability before loss= =2E There is something admirable in ref= using panic or nostalgia. Yet the mood= leaves unsettled the very thing at stake. What, precisely, has been lost? = Is it the outsourcing of tasks once done by scholars and students? Or somet= hing deeper – an erosion of our ability to say what learning is and w= hy it matters? If the latter, then the task is not to mourn but to clarify.=

The optimization model gives an answer to the conditions of learning. Specify the inputs, design the arch= itecture, supply the feedback, and the system will learn. The humanist pict= ure asks a different kind of question: how does one become the kind of agen= t for whom understanding is possible? What posture of inquiry is required? = What relation must a learner bear to what is learned such that the learning= is not merely an accumulation of correct outputs but a transformation of t= he knower?

Plato’s Meno: From True Belief to Knowledge

=

Plato’s Meno begins with a q= uestion about whether virtue can be taught. But the dialogue soon becomes a= meditation on what learning entails. Its most famous puzzle – Meno&#= 8217;s paradox – puts the point sharply. If you know what you are loo= king for, you need not inquire. If you do not, you cannot: you would not re= cognize it even if you found it. The implication is that learning appears e= ither trivial or impossible. Socrates answers, not with a definition, but w= ith an enactment. Learning, he suggests, is not a transaction of facts but = a posture of inquiry, a willingness to let questioning change you.

This becomes vivid in the exchange with Meno’s uneduca= ted slave. Socrates poses a geometrical problem: how to construct a square = with twice the area of a given square. The boy answers first by intuition: = double the side. That, of course, yields a square four times as large. Unde= r further questioning, with lines drawn and possibilities tested, the boy n= otices a new path: the diagonal of the original square, used as the side of= a new square, yields the desired doubling. What matters here is not that t= he boy reaches the “right answer” without being told. It is tha= t his earlier picture of the situation is exposed as inadequate, and that h= e learns to stand differently in relation to the problem – to look ag= ain, to be corrected, and to sustain the tension of not knowing long enough= for a better grasp to emerge.

Plato calls this movement &#= 8220;recollection” – not because the slave recovers a previousl= y stored fact, but because genuine learning feels like remembering somethin= g you somehow already knew how to see. Recollection names a regained capaci= ty for recognition. The boy’s mind is awakened to the structure that = was available all along but occluded by a hasty picture. The point is not m= ystical; it is phenomenological. Insight feels like remembering because it = restores us to ourselves as knowers.

The dialogue end= s with a different, equally important distinction. Socrates compares true b= eliefs to the marvellously lifelike statues of Daedalus: they are valuable,= but they run away unless tied down. Knowledge, by contrast, is true belief= “tied down by an account of the reason why” - aitia= s logismos. The difference is not primarily in accuracy but in <= /span>ownership. A belief becomes knowledge when it is held = non‑accidentally, when the knower can give a reason that renders its = truth intelligible to herself. Tying down does not mean discovering a mecha= nical cause; it means understanding what makes the claim hold and being abl= e to stand behind it.

This “tying down&#= 8221; is both epistemic and ethical. To know, in Plato’s sense, is to= bear responsibility for what one asserts. Untethered true beliefs may guid= e us well enough, but their guidance is accidental; we do not possess them = so much as they possess us. Knowledge is claimed rath= er than merely had. It requires the learner to become= , in some sense, the cause of her belief – to be able to say not only= that it is so, but why it must= be so.

Placed alongside modern machine learni= ng, the distinction presses uncomfortably. A neural network can converge on= highly accurate predictions. It can be probed, sometimes, for post‑h= oc explanations; and techniques in interpretability aim to recover reasons = from models. But the system does not appear to own it= s outputs. It does not stand in a reason‑giving relation to what it s= ays. Its correctness is not the achievement of an agent who can be addresse= d, challenged, and held to account. If Plato is right, then what machines d= o – even at superhuman levels of performance – remains at the l= evel of true belief. That is not an insult. It is a way of marking the diff= erence between prediction and understanding.

T= he pedagogical implications are equally sharp. If knowledge is tied‑d= own true belief, then the task of a teacher is not to deposit right answers= but to cultivate a poise in the learner: the readine= ss to inquire well, to live with perplexity, to give and demand reasons. So= crates models this by asking questions that do not humiliate or coerce, but= invite the student into responsibility. The goal is not speed of convergen= ce but the formation of a knower for whom convergence, when it comes, is no= t accidental. In an optimization culture obsessed with outcomes, this is a = reminder that the interior stance of the learner is part of what learning <= /span>is.

Augustine’= ;s The Teacher: Signs and Illumi= nation

If Plato dramatizes learning as a pu= blic inquiry, Augustine turns our attention to the interior conditions that= make understanding possible. The Teacher is framed a= s a dialogue with his son Adeodatus about whether teaching is even possible= =2E Augustine’s starting claim is= deliberately paradoxical: words do no= t teach; at most, they remind. Language offers signs, but the grasp of what= those signs signify must occur within the learner. The teacher points; the= student sees – or does not.

Consider Au= gustine’s small but telling example. Suppose I try to teach you what = “walking” means by performing it. You watch; I walk faster to m= ake the action clear. But you might then think walking is hurrying, and be misled. The demonstration is not self‑interpret= ing. Signs are always liable to confusion. This is not merely a problem of = ambiguous words. It is a structural fact about communication: the meaning o= f a sign is not in the sign. It is in the act of recognition by which a min= d sees what is meant.

From her= e Augustine draws a radical conclusion about the locus of learning. When we= “learn from words,” we either already know what they signify &= #8211; in which case we are being reminded – or we do not, in which c= ase we cannot be taught by them alone. Understanding is an event of inward = illumination. For Augustine theologically, the inner teacher is Christ R= 11; the Truth that instructs every mind from within. For readers who do not= share his theology, the point can be expressed more generally: genuine lea= rning involves an encounter with intelligibility that is not reducible to e= xternal transmission. There is a moment in understanding that cannot be han= ded over; it must occur as recognition.

This interior= ity is not privatism. Augustine is equally insistent that truth is public. = When two people recognize the same truth, they do not do so by peering into= one another’s minds, but by turning toward a reality available to bo= th. Hence the striking claim elsewhere in the Confessions: if we both see that something is true, we see it not in me nor in you= , but in a light above our minds. The language is metaphysical, but the exp= erience is common. Think of the moment in a seminar when a difficult passag= e clicks for several readers at once. The recognition= is intensely personal and unmistakably shared.

Placed alongside AI, Augustine’s account reframes the worry. Artifi= cial systems generate signs – text, images, speech. They can be power= ful engines of reminder, redescription, and juxtaposition. But they do not = recognize truth. They do not awaken to meaning. The q= uestion, then, is not whether machines will replace teachers, but whether w= e will remember what teaching asks of us: to arrange signs so that recognit= ion can occur, while never confusing the sign with what is signified. On th= is view, AI can serve learning – but only if the learner remains the = agent of understanding. The danger is not that we will be fooled by synthet= ic language. It is that we will forget the difference between words and wha= t they are for.

Augustine also gives us a rich= er account of memory than the mere storage of data. In his reflections, mem= ory is the living archive in which our past is not simply kept but <= em>interpreted; it is the site where impressions become parts of= a life. To learn authentically is to re‑pattern memory: to reorder w= hat we recall and how it matters. Machines store and retrieve. They do not = remember in this sense, because they are not selves for whom anything can m= atter. This is not an argument for human uniqueness so much as a reminder o= f the sort of being a learner is.

A Conste= llation Called “Authenticity”

B= ut what is “authentic learning”? The phrase is awkward because = it tempts a binary – real versus fake – precisely the polarity = this inquiry tries to resist. Perhaps authenticity names not an essence but= a family resemblance, a constellation of experiences= that differ in form and context yet share certain features. Among these ar= e orientation (the posture of inquiry that refuses to collapse the question= prematurely), responsibility (the willingness to stand behind what one cla= ims), and interior disruption (the way understanding dislodges us before it= settles us). These are not outcomes but stances. The= y describe the relation a learner bears to what is learned and to the sourc= es that make learning possible.

Seen in this l= ight, the optimization model is not false but partial. It describes how a s= ystem can become more accurate at a task by iterative adjustment. It does n= ot describe what it is like to come to know in such a way that the knowledg= e becomes yours. Plato’s language of tying down= and Augustine’s language of illumination point to that interior achi= evement. They name a movement from correctness to possession, from output t= o understanding. The point is not to romanticize struggle or to reject effi= ciency. It is to insist that the struggle is often where responsibility is = acquired, and that efficiency can be a vice when it insulates us from the r= isks on which insight depends.

If this is right, the= n the presence of powerful artificial systems is a double-edged sword. Prec= isely because machines can so fluently simulate certain performances, they = force us to articulate what, in those performances, we care about. If a mod= el can produce an essay indistinguishable in surface features from a compet= ent student’s, then the work of teaching cannot be reduced to enforci= ng prohibitions or detecting anomalies. It must become the work that Socrat= es and Augustine model: cultivating poise, demanding reasons, arranging sig= ns for recognition, and inviting students to tie down what they say.

These reflections are not merely theoretical. They suggest concre= te practices for classrooms, institutions, and personal study:

  1. Design for re= asons, not just results. Ask for explanations, comparisons, = and counterexamples that require aitias logismos R= 11; an account of the reason why. Invite students to identify where a claim= could be wrong and what would change their minds.

  2. Make room for productive difficulty. B= uild assignments that include stages of confusion and revision: interviews = with primary texts, problem notebooks, seminar minutes that track the evolu= tion of a question rather than its answer. Treat perplexity as part of the = method.

  3. Stage recognition. Use AI as a tool for juxtaposition – summaries to disput= e, alternative framings to compare, synthetic outlines to reorganize. But l= et the decisive act be the student’s: the moment of saying what follo= ws and why it matters.

  4. <= p style=3D"color: rgb(54,55,55);line-height: 26px;margin-bottom: 0;box-sizi= ng: border-box;padding-left: 4px;font-size: 16px;margin: 0;">Attend= to voice. Encourage writing that shows the marks of ownersh= ip: hesitations that are earned, commitments that are justified, references= that are integrated into a living question. Evaluate for the quality of re= lation to sources, not only for correctness or fluency.

  5. Develop interpretive memory. Ask = students to curate a portfolio of passages, problems, and questions that co= ntinue to inspire them, with periodic returns. The aim is to cultivate the = Augustinian work of recollection, not the mechanical work of storage.

  6. Cultivate shared seeing.<= span> In seminar, pause when something seems clear and ask: what exactly di= d we just see? Where do we see it in the text or the problem? How could it = be otherwise? Make public the interior act of recognition.

    7. <= /ol>

    These are more than just protections against technology; t= hey are practices of freedom in the presence of it. They treat students as = potential knowers capable of responsibility.

    What= We Keep in View

    The optimization paradigm will c= ontinue to transform our tools and our institutions. It will also tempt us = to take performance as the whole of learning. Plato and Augustine do not de= liver a counter‑paradigm so much as they restore what a paradigm cann= ot hold: the posture of inquiry, the bearing of reasons, the interior act o= f recognition. They remind us that learning is not only a matter of getting= things right, but of being transformed into the kind of person for whom ge= tting them right is not accidental.

    If = 220;authenticity” remains useful, it is because it can name this qual= ity of relation – a fidelity to difficulty, responsibility, and share= d truth. Authentic learning is not a property of an output. It is a way a k= nower stands. Machines will continue to refine the outputs. They may even h= elp us see more quickly what we could not see before. But they cannot relie= ve us of the work of tying down our beliefs, or of turning toward the light= by which we come to see. That work remains ours, and it is, still, worth l= earning how to do.

 
3D""Like
3D""Comment
<= /td>
3D""Restack
=  

© 2025 Cosmos Institute
500 W 2nd Street, Suite 1900, Austin, TX 78701
Unsubscribe

3D"Get3D"Start

<= /td>3D""3D"" --fbdcdfbaa56e718f528b222053ba7b059079a26ba0cba31475cb89e032bc--