PDA

View Full Version : Do you know Dewey?



coberst
06-05-2009, 03:37 PM
Do you know Dewey?

I am a retired engineer with some formal education in philosophy that I gained over a period of time while engaged in my engineering career. I have, over the last thirty years, been actively engaged in reading a great deal of history, biography, philosophy and science. All of this activity I would describe as disinterested learning. To me this means learning only for the sake of knowing and understanding. I find value in knowing and understanding as an end in-itself.

One thing that has struck me along the way is that contemporary philosophizing has become irrelevant to the problems of society. I also think that society has suffered enormously as a result of this failure. This is my opinion and from what I read it is an opinion shared by many.

Perhaps one result of this failure of contemporary philosophizing has had an advantageous result. The result I speak of is a rebirth of interest in the works of John Dewey. I have discovered Dewey in the last decade and have become slightly familiar with his work. His work is prodigious and I have gained most of my understanding from secondary sources.

Ernest Becker makes the point that the humanization process is one wherein the individual exchanges the natural organismic propensity for a mysterious symbolic dictation. The child in its very essential formative age is faced with denying that which ‘comes naturally’ for what are symbolic dictates that are far beyond its ability for comprehension. The child’s formation of character is dictated by its need to be somebody in the symbolic world.

John Dewey learned long ago that “the child continually loses battles he does not understand…we earn our early self-esteem not actively but in large part passively, by having our action blocked and re-oriented to the parents pleasure.”

In the very essential formative years the child develops character traits that in many cases remain with that individual for the rest of their life.

What is character? Character is the network of habits that permeate all the intentional acts of an individual.

I am not using the word habit in the way we often do, as a technical ability existing apart from our wishes. These habits are an intimate and fundamental part of our selves. They are representations of our will. They rule our will, working in a coordinated way they dominate our way of acting. These habits are the results of repeated, intelligently controlled, actions.

Habits also control the formation of ideas as well as physical actions. We cannot perform a correct action or a correct idea without having already formed correct habits. “Reason pure of all influence from prior habit is a fiction.” “The medium of habit filters all material that reaches our perception and thought.” “Immediate, seemingly instinctive, feeling of the direction and end of various lines of behavior is in reality the feeling of habits working below direct consciousness.” “Habit means special sensitiveness or accessibility to certain classes of stimuli, standing predilections and aversions, rather than bare recurrence of specific acts. It means will.”

Britannica specifies that attitude is “a predisposition to classify objects and events and to react to them with some degree of evaluative consistency.”

If I consult my inner self I cannot focus upon an attitude but can infer such an attitude based on behavior. If I wish to become conscious of my intuition I can through observation of behavior describe the attitude, which, in turn, allows me to ascertain the nature of my intuition.

When a mother tells her son “you must change your attitude”. The son cannot change the attitude directly but the son must change his intuition from which the inferred attitude emanates. This does become a bit convoluted but in essence when we wish to change an attitude we are saying that our intuition must be modified. We can modify intuition only through habit directed by our will.

“Were it not for the continued operation of all habits in every act, no such thing as character would exist. There would be simply a bundle, an untied bundle at that, of isolated acts. Character is the interpenetrating of habits. If each habit in an insulated compartment and operated without affecting or being affected by others, character would not exist. That is conduct would lack unity being only juxtaposition of disconnected reactions to separated situations. But since environments overlap, since situations are continuous and those remote from one another contain like elements, a continuous modification of habits by one another is constantly going on.”

I would like to recommend the thoughts of John Dewey to all those who are disheartened by the direction of education, politics and the general drift of our society wherein citizens have allowed themselves to become propagandized into recognizing production and consumption as its most important values.

My understanding of character and the quotations concerning the nature of character are taken from Habits and Will by John Dewey

Nightshade
06-05-2009, 07:06 PM
I am assuming you are NOT reffering to the DDC system here?
:confused:

billl
06-05-2009, 09:19 PM
different dewey! :)

Buh4Bee
06-05-2009, 11:34 PM
Yes, I know John Dewey. I have read Democracy and Education (1916) and Experience and Education (1938). Dewey was one of the formidable educational reformers of the beginning of the 20th century.

Dewey promoted hands-on learning, in which the student could define their own learning parameters. Given such a learning environment, it is believed that most learns will motivate themselves and define their own learning independently. This is what such educational theories as differentiated instruction are based on. Given the ideal environment, it is possible that such learning can thrive.

Coberst, you are one of the lucky one who like to learn for the sake of learning when compared to the many who need a purpose or external motivation to learn anything. Students may ask, "Why should I learn that? Why should I read this?" "Because it makes you think," is not enough to convince a student to pick up a book.

Dewey strongly believed in educating the future generations about their civic responsibilities, such as voting. Do we teach philosophy in school?
I know most middle school students and high school students are taught Civics to understand how a democracy works and our role in the democracy.
Does this count as philosophy?

You discuss Ernest Becker and describe the character formation of a child in response to their parent. I don’t know Becker, but I am under the impression that this is character formation through such developmental processes as imitation, language acquisition, morality, even religious beliefs. It seems that this process is described as occurring passively. Philosophically this idea may make sense, but for pragmatic application, I do not believe it is completely valid.

Dewey advocated a progressive type of education in which a child learns by doing, otherwise know as hands-on education, experiential learning, and inquiry based. Such learning is self-motivated and defined by the individual, more so than by the adult or teacher. Such learning theories can be found in schools such as Montessori. This type of teaching/ learning is supported by the school of developmental psychologists such as Piaget.

The early years from which a child develops their schemata form a foundation for later learning. This is why the early years of development are so critical. However, children continue to develop their character throughout their entire childhood.

This leads to the next point, in which children or young people learn in society or a community. You may be interested in reading Vygotsky, who described the proximal zone of development, in which a child learns best if taught in the range of his intellectual capacity. The teaching should happen communally. Information is transmitted from one to another, teacher to student, student to student, parent to child, or in whatever other relationship the exchange occurs.

You describe the character as the innate part of the being. This is also how I would define the character, according to what has been discussed or outlined so far.

When you refer to a young person's changing their attitude at a parents request, it seems you imply that they must do this through their own choice or will. This means that they have to embrace or accept that their is a flaw in their habit or character and recognize the need to change it. This also may demonstrate that the young person is still develop his or her character.
Isn’t this hard for most young people to do? Is this one reason, you feel young people or people in general should benefit from learning philosophy?

Teaching philosophy to older children may help them to develop better thinking skills and adopt a more informed attitude. Such educational value and opportunities may contribute to better character formation and internal motivation. At the end of the day, it is nice to see people in the society think about what is conscientious behavior and what is not. Don't buy the Hummer, buy organic instead.

John Dewey is a good philosopher to offer hope in the current political climate. I live In America and I have heard the president talk from Cairo and this has brought hope back to my home, for now, even if Obama just speaks words.

AuntShecky
06-06-2009, 03:01 PM
There's a great story about John Dewey(1859-1952) in the Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes. When the education pioneer had retired to a Long Island farm, he would sell his produce and eggs to the Hampton types. One day he got a call for a delivery, and since there was no one around to deliver a dozen eggs, Dewey made the delivery himself. Later he was lecturing a women's club in the area and overheard a rich woman whispering to the person sitting next to her, "Why, he looks exactly like our egg man!"

As far as his pedagogical philosophy is concerned, I've always believed that what G.K. Chesterton had said about Christianity can be applied to misinterpretations of John Dewey's theory:
"The problem is not that has been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and never been tried."

It's no secret that the last several decades the American public educational system has been a travesty. The reason for its abysmal failure can be partially attributed to misplaced priorities in teacher training, specifically the over-emphasis on so-called "education courses," (the tricks of the trade) rather than upon hiring would-be teachers who had preferred to have majored in actual subject matter itself. Years ago there was no such thing as a "Ph.D in Education;" now administrators calling themselves "Doctor" are high school principals, assistant principals, vice principals, assistant vice principals [I]ad infinitum.

As far as the "self-esteem" issue this thread brings up, it seems as if Dewey promulgated it only as a reward for achievement, not an a priori approach to students who have yet to achieve goals by which they can feel proud. Some of the more savvy high school students realize this, and realize that the unearned praise which teachers heap upon them has no real value.

Oh, don't get me started on the lousy state of our schools. . .

But the title of your thread inspired this ditty:

(To the tune of "If You Knew Susie"):

If you know Dewey
Like I know Dewey --
Oh, oh, oh what a guy!

He's into burnin'
Little tots with learnin'
Oh, oh, oh what a guy --

If you know Dewey,
his mind's not screwy --
Oh, oh what a guy!

Buh4Bee
06-06-2009, 05:54 PM
As far as the "self-esteem" issue this thread brings up, it seems as if Dewey promulgated it only as a reward for achievement, not an a priori approach to students who have yet to achieve goals by which they can feel proud. Some of the more savvy high school students realize this, and realize that the unearned praise which teachers heap upon them has no real value.


Whether this is Dewey's point or not, most students are going to work for a reward. They are not going to work, because it makes them feel good about themselves. Don't most adults work for a pay check? I'm not sure if this idea has to do with self-esteem or better yet motivation.

To actually have an inquiry-based curriculum is a tremendous amount of work with a class of 20 students or even 120 students. It's just not possible. The elementary grades are more apt to have such a set up, and it still is a difficult task to keep all the students going. The point I'm making and agreeing with AuntShecky, is that Dewey's philosophy is hardly ever applied, except maybe in an ideal teaching situation.

The problem of motivation in the context of student learning, is how do you get the unmotivated to work? Is inquiry-based learning going to help motivate those who do not care? Do the few students that are motivated end up in AP classes and go onto to do bigger and better things?
I am an idealist and do believe in Dewey and do apply his philosophy in my teaching when possible.

coberst
06-07-2009, 09:20 AM
Jersea

Habit requires will and self discipline. A young person who has developed the habit of self discipline can better change habits. Our habits are not accidental or a matter if genes it is a matter of will and hard work.

coberst
06-07-2009, 09:21 AM
Aunt

I like your song!

Buh4Bee
06-07-2009, 10:03 AM
Coberst,

Developing good habit and self-motivation is the idea behind inquiry based education, especially in the younger grades. If following a progress based education, the teacher should guide student learning. Through this process the students are being taught the habit of good studies skills and what it feels like to motivate oneself. The problem is this kind of education is time consuming, especially when teachers need to meet the standards of NCLB. So, Dewey is not applied in the regular classroom as often as it should be.