What I want to add to this conversation is simply that there are more allies in the so-called postmodern vein which many neo-classicists reject outright by association. Those thinkers of contingency (Bakhtin, Berdyaev, et al. as well as more contemporary figures like Meilassoux, Zizek, Blanchot etc.) affirm practicality and “usage” but denounce a “usury.” Strictly utilitarian notions lend themselves to either usurious neglect of corporeal dignity or ab-use of it. These thinkers enable an a pedagogy of practicality that we can and should employ (if you are right in the above). Only a theology of free and contingent being can allow for usufruction. We don’t necessarily HAVE to borrow their categories but they can enrich our endeavors. Of course, aside from the “post”-thinkers usufruction is at once Agustinian (c.f. De Doctrina Christiana) and Hebraic (c.f. agricultural oriented law codes).

Finally, my advocacy is for a more critical engagement with these minds by reconsidering our grading procedures and various assignments. If creativity is funneled through particular media (writing or graded tests), then there is a unilateral priority of abstraction over the material. We know implicitly, that these are on a feedback loop. So why can’t we be discerning beauty in graffitti or a baking recipe as opposed to a formal speech? This would seem to be the zenith of rhetorical studies: re-ordered signs and symbols enriching the elegance of daily life. I am convinced that a robust theology of change and “use,” perhaps with the aid of forsworn philosophical “enemies” can provide this.

for immediate implementation, we should all be reading Matthew Crawford’s work: Shop as Soulcraft.

Thank you for this quotation.

As a “bonus”, it led me to this verse, which says everything our hearts could ever want to say:
Psalm 119:81

—Pope Benedict XVI

I, too, am waiting for the Latin tie in.

Re-read Andrew’s first part. Partake a draught of irony and beware of utility and instant gratification. These are a large part of the issue.