philosophy? Shouldnt pedagogics be based on science?. Dewey's philosophy of education
philosophy? Shouldnt pedagogics be based on science?. Dewey's philosophy of education
Which totally exactly why we shouldnt listen to philosophers. To much thought and to little justification.He thought education needed to be arraigned such the the child's experience would build up in the manner of the scientific method. He seems to have deemphasized the scientific method as a way of measuring educational success.
The former allows the child to advance at his own unique pace, whereas the latter would force arbitrary uniformity upon the educational process.
Which totally exactly why we shouldnt listen to philosophers. To much thought and to little justification.
The former allows the child to advance at his own unique pace, whereas the latter would force arbitrary uniformity upon the educational process.
I didnt say that the scientific method should be used as the pedagogical method, but that the selection of pedagogic method should be based on the result of the science of pedagogics.
One of the reasons I made this thread on *modern* philosophy in particular is because I've dabbled in a bit of modern philosophy (admittedly a very small amount) and at least the works I've attempted seem so far into the obscure and abstract that they seem removed from anything pragmatic. Obviously some of the suggestions in this thread suggest that this isn't the case for all modern philosophy, though.
I was thinking the other day about how a lot of philosophy is not *necessary* for the betterment of individual human life, in the sense that average joe blow welder can go from end to end without reading a word of Hume and he doesn't notice. But that said there must have been a few kernels of wisdom throughout the millennia that profoundly affected joe blow's life without him realizing it, which there is evidence of in the other thread I made. So when you move to whatever one calls modern philosophy surely there must be some of those profound kernels of wisdom, I just haven't found them yet.
Not if it is wrong. And if it is not based on science you cannot know.Well, your question is about usefulness. That is a tricky term. For instance, is a philosophy useful if it helps you understand the world you live in but does not result in any direct action?
Has it? How do we know?Dewey's philosophy of education was the only instance I could think of in modern philosophy (by modern I mean at least into the 20th century) where his ideas have actually exerted influence and have met with at least a degree of success.
Yeah, well, I was just reading some book written by a philosopher and the author digressed into remarking that Bergson's notion of Elan vital greatly influenced school teachers of his time, the same ones who became officers in the French army in 1914. Apparently, they immediately applied their idea of Elan vital to the battlefield and sent the French infantery straight into the lines of fire of the brand new German machine guns.Same idea, but confined to whatever you consider modern philosophy.
One of the reasons I made this thread on *modern* philosophy in particular is because I've dabbled in a bit of modern philosophy (admittedly a very small amount) and at least the works I've attempted seem so far into the obscure and abstract that they seem removed from anything pragmatic. Obviously some of the suggestions in this thread suggest that this isn't the case for all modern philosophy, though.
I was thinking the other day about how a lot of philosophy is not *necessary* for the betterment of individual human life, in the sense that average joe blow welder can go from end to end without reading a word of Hume and he doesn't notice. But that said there must have been a few kernels of wisdom throughout the millennia that profoundly affected joe blow's life without him realizing it, which there is evidence of in the other thread I made. So when you move to whatever one calls modern philosophy surely there must be some of those profound kernels of wisdom, I just haven't found them yet.
Is it not that each philosopher is one reason that there is so much confusion in modern philosophy?Oh, and I should have added: not reading anything from Hume would be a good thing, intellectually. Hume is one of the reasons there is so much confusion in modern philosophy.
Yeah, Einstein played the violin... I guess his woman meanwhile did the cooking and the laundry.***NOTE: this is NOT to say that scientists can't be artists and poets who think and feel. Of course they can! And they are. Let's hope it stays that way.
One of the reasons I made this thread on *modern* philosophy in particular is because I've dabbled in a bit of modern philosophy (admittedly a very small amount) and at least the works I've attempted seem so far into the obscure and abstract that they seem removed from anything pragmatic. Obviously some of the suggestions in this thread suggest that this isn't the case for all modern philosophy, though.
I was thinking the other day about how a lot of philosophy is not *necessary* for the betterment of individual human life, in the sense that average joe blow welder can go from end to end without reading a word of Hume and he doesn't notice. But that said there must have been a few kernels of wisdom throughout the millennia that profoundly affected joe blow's life without him realizing it, which there is evidence of in the other thread I made. So when you move to whatever one calls modern philosophy surely there must be some of those profound kernels of wisdom, I just haven't found them yet.
I can't help but recoil at 'average joe-blow welder'. I'm a blue-collar worker, and have worked among blue-collar workers my whole life. To be flatly honest here, without trying to be insulting: I have no reason to think that the people I've worked with are any dumber than the people I've associated with at FRDB and here over the past ten years. I've had many discussions about science and philosophy with my workmates, many political/religious discussions, etc. I know many wage earners who are extremely well-read and very bright.
Contrarily, I was in management for two years, and I met other department heads who couldn't compose a coherent sentence. Career choice probably doesn't have much to do with native intelligence. It boils down to ambition and opportunity, I think. And some people are forced to excel and succeed by overbearing parents.
Not to mention the fact that welding is damn hard and not just any joe-schmo can do it well. It's probably harder than a lot of administrative work. I've done administrative work, paper work, had a desk and all that. It was a breeze compared to some of the joe-jobs I've held.
Sorry, just venting, but that's a sore spot for me. I know you didn't mean anything demeaning by it, rousseau.
The point was that the average person has no real need for philosophy
The point was that the average person has no real need for philosophy
The emancipation of the Germans is the emancipation of mankind. The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart is the proletariat. Philosophy can achieve nothing without raising up the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot raise itself up without the achievement of philosophy.--Marx (link is to the German original)