Comments on: A response to ‘What is the Purpose of Education’ http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/09/15/a-response-to-what-is-the-purpose-of-education/ Blogging on Philosophy and Politics Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » Faith Schools http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/09/15/a-response-to-what-is-the-purpose-of-education/comment-page-1/#comment-401 Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » Faith Schools Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:25:05 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/09/15/a-response-to-what-is-the-purpose-of-education/#comment-401 [...] On your recent post: [...] [...] On your recent post: [...]

]]> By: Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » Meditating on Descartes 1st Meditation http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/09/15/a-response-to-what-is-the-purpose-of-education/comment-page-1/#comment-400 Yet There Is Method In It » Blog Archive » Meditating on Descartes 1st Meditation Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:07:51 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/09/15/a-response-to-what-is-the-purpose-of-education/#comment-400 [...] on from the previous discussions about education and teaching I got thinking about Descartes, solopsism and the anti-realist [...] [...] on from the previous discussions about education and teaching I got thinking about Descartes, solopsism and the anti-realist [...]

]]> By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/09/15/a-response-to-what-is-the-purpose-of-education/comment-page-1/#comment-399 El Sordo Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:50:53 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/09/15/a-response-to-what-is-the-purpose-of-education/#comment-399 On a less controversial note I should clarify that as an anti-realist my ideal for an education system is one that encompasses the idea of an open debate/dialogue. That as many methods as possible are presented, as many facets of each argument or discipline are explored. And ultimately that each individual be left to decide for themselves that which they believe to be true. I will post (possibly tommorow) a meditation based on Descartes 1st meditation, the solopsistic argument. But instead of thinking about the 'brain in a vat' scenario, return instead to Descartes 'decieving demon' as a personification of untrustorthy perceptions. However I will reinterpret it in the light of what I call existential uncertainty, where without recourse to God/the Devil, non-ordinary states of consciousness or abstract thoughts about what we can 'know' to be real, I will instead discuss the simple scenario of being surrounded by untruth, and the systematic effect that small and major lies may have upon an individuals perception of self, other and world around them. It is probable that such a meditation (essentially anti-authority in nature) would reveal to the reader that despite my rant on the difference between teaching and educating, we hold very similar views, although we would apply them differently! On a less controversial note I should clarify that as an anti-realist my ideal for an education system is one that encompasses the idea of an open debate/dialogue. That as many methods as possible are presented, as many facets of each argument or discipline are explored. And ultimately that each individual be left to decide for themselves that which they believe to be true.

I will post (possibly tommorow) a meditation based on Descartes 1st meditation, the solopsistic argument. But instead of thinking about the ‘brain in a vat’ scenario, return instead to Descartes ‘decieving demon’ as a personification of untrustorthy perceptions. However I will reinterpret it in the light of what I call existential uncertainty, where without recourse to God/the Devil, non-ordinary states of consciousness or abstract thoughts about what we can ‘know’ to be real, I will instead discuss the simple scenario of being surrounded by untruth, and the systematic effect that small and major lies may have upon an individuals perception of self, other and world around them.

It is probable that such a meditation (essentially anti-authority in nature) would reveal to the reader that despite my rant on the difference between teaching and educating, we hold very similar views, although we would apply them differently!

]]> By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/09/15/a-response-to-what-is-the-purpose-of-education/comment-page-1/#comment-398 El Sordo Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:36:09 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/09/15/a-response-to-what-is-the-purpose-of-education/#comment-398 I should add Ac-1's views are: Hypocritical and Dangerous: when he advocates the banning of faith schools, where a shared faith and ethos, (even by non-members, see the example of Sikhs/Muslims going to Catholic schools) is reflective of the values of a group who share the same educational aspirations as the rest of us. It is in truth an expression of distaste about faith in general. Should not the anti-realist like myself clamour for schools to ban the teaching science, on accounts of its taught methods being indoctrination of a particular world view about reality? Should deaf people not lobby for the closure of schools of music? It is incoherent that in promoting free-thinking we should also prevent the free-choice of parents and pupils to be schooled in a particular fashion (no matter how objectionable it may seem to our own tastes?) An open debate and a libertarian society entails the acceptance of such peculiarities. It is unjustified when the evidence suggests that the vast overwhelming majority of pupils who go to faith schools in this country recieve a broad and satisfactory education. Have little difficulty in being cohesive members of a diverse society. Are well rounded individuals. If you can specifically identify cases where this does not occur then I would suggest this to be the exception and not the rule, and would posit that such rare examples could be found across the entire educational spectrum, religous, secular, private, state-funded etc. I should add Ac-1′s views are:
Hypocritical and Dangerous: when he advocates the banning of faith schools, where a shared faith and ethos, (even by non-members, see the example of Sikhs/Muslims going to Catholic schools) is reflective of the values of a group who share the same educational aspirations as the rest of us. It is in truth an expression of distaste about faith in general.
Should not the anti-realist like myself clamour for schools to ban the teaching science, on accounts of its taught methods being indoctrination of a particular world view about reality?
Should deaf people not lobby for the closure of schools of music?

It is incoherent that in promoting free-thinking we should also prevent the free-choice of parents and pupils to be schooled in a particular fashion (no matter how objectionable it may seem to our own tastes?)
An open debate and a libertarian society entails the acceptance of such peculiarities.

It is unjustified when the evidence suggests that the vast overwhelming majority of pupils who go to faith schools in this country recieve a broad and satisfactory education. Have little difficulty in being cohesive members of a diverse society. Are well rounded individuals.
If you can specifically identify cases where this does not occur then I would suggest this to be the exception and not the rule, and would posit that such rare examples could be found across the entire educational spectrum, religous, secular, private, state-funded etc.

]]>