Halakhic Man and the Mentor/Apprentice Model of Ancient Greece

So I was talking to someone over Shabbos about the Rav in general and Halakhic Man specifically, and both of us noted the same danger in the youth of today reading such works. the problem is that we read Halakhic Man as a mussar sefer instead of what it is, a descriptive work. We are drawn in by the aesthetics and emotion of the Rav's compelling writing and somehow manage to convince ourselves that the experience of a few elite Briskers is the Talmud Torah experience, and is what our Talmud Torah experience should be, and in fact is what it is a few days after we start reading the book, since it has to be, since we convince ourselves that it has to be...and convince ourselves that it is a mere few days later. What the Rav was recording was an experience that grew and grew after years of sitting with his father every day over the gemara. Yet somehow we posit that as mere teenagers or even young adults, who have not learned even a fraction of the amount that the Rav learned, (aside from those of us who have-you are obsolved from this) we too can and must have the same experience. Furthermore, we think this has to be the experience, when as products of modernity and as individuals we will most definately have a different experience. THIS IS EXTREMELY DAMAGING! (But it is also true that it is a good way of convincing modern people that this a-priori system of thought, that ignores many assumptions that we have of the world, is the most worthwhile endeavor.) The same can be true of much of the Rav's descriptive work. It is positive and helpful in terms of bringing someone into his vision and religious experience, it helps to color our religious vision and experience, but as a moreh derech in the beginning. We all reach the point of disconnect when we realize that we can no longer read our Rav precisely because of what drew us to him in the first place! The Rav's descriptive style enables it to grab hold of our religious perspective, to almost shape our religious experience, if we relate to it in the least bit. There comes a point where we realize that is only helpful to open the door and then we crave our own autonomy, we want to create our very own "Lonely Man of Faith". It's the typical parent/child relationship. Some of us may even be upset at the Rav for shaping their religious perspetive, ignoring the help he gave by opening the door and letting in the light. And perhaps such a complaint would be legitimate. But hey! You picked up the book so blame yourself!

In connection to this, I was discussing with the same person (it was a 3 hour conversation) models of education, expressing my hopelessly ideal preference of the ancient Greek model of student and apprentice, which is somewhat similar to the timeless relationship of Rebbe/Talmid (aside from the homosexuality/sexual gratification). On the other hand, in light of what we just said about the Rav, as members of the modern, or shall I say post-modern world, we recognize the need for indivdual autonomy, for diversity, something that would not be available if one had a single teacher alone, and something that even in the world of Torah learning exists today. With the rise of mass education, and a parallel rise in Talmud Torah, more people know stuff. And although the revered Rebbe/Talmid relationship has dwindeled some because of that, because there are just so many people, and things have become less intimate, we have gained in terms of breadth and diversity. (Yes I know R' Akiva had 24,000 students. I know it wasn't always intimate.) But still, I continue to feel that there is a better balance that can be struck and that the personal and intimate relaitonship between a student and a teacher must be maintained if we value real knowledge and the process of its aqcuisition; if we value people and the discovery of some sort of "truth". The lack of intimacy defiles the knowledge and the people, making them both just like another i-pod or blackberry.