I agree with all that you guys have said about education, especially Thursday's class. And Russ, it WAS awesome. I think that was the most fun I've had in a class in a very long time.
Re: the American education system...
I think that one of its weaknesses is that it pigeon holes people. I want to make a couple of points:
1) that in few disciplines are people who graduate with a degree in it (undergrad)actually "experts".
2) That concentrating in one area should not have to come att he expense of taking other classes. Of course, the challenge here is to find another fesiable system...
3) that in the US, the fact that you have a degree is valued more than what it was in (they just like that you have it because it means you can think and it gives you certain stature). I just think that my experience in the working world and at AU has taught me that the piece of paper matters more than the fact that you decided to take SIS-460 instead of SIS-470. I mean, it depends on what you want to do with your life--if you are the scholarly type, then good for you. But I'm much happier working (more a "doer" than a thinker), and so I think for someone like me, the ability to jump around from discipline to discipline would have been much more useful.
But then again, in Latin America, most people have to specialize when they enter college, as most people study only one discipline for the duration.
And then there's the Mark Twain argument: "The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school." (or something along those lines). Do we really need some sort of organized structure in order to learn things. Yes, probably, to a point. But I also think I have learned the most about myself and about the world by traveling and meeting people from all over. Do we always need a theory for everything? Maybe if we will become chief actors in a certain area that values stuff like that, but otherwise I would argue that practical experience is almost more valuable than academic experience. Feel free to argue with me (I'm a senior...I'm ready to get out and I'm a bit jaded....)
Monday, December 11, 2006
Along those same lines
I agree with all that you guys have said about education, especially Thursday's class. And Russ, it WAS awesome. I think that was the most fun I've had in a class in a very long time.
Re: the American education system...
I think that one of its weaknesses is
Re: the American education system...
I think that one of its weaknesses is
On education, and the grief I feel missing last class
So, I missed the last discussion session of the semester, for reasons of.. well - for reasons of it being the end of the semester and having to choose between missing a class session or perhaps failing another class for not having a project finished. Not an excuse, but a reason -- and not a decision I relished making, either.
Well, today I ran into PTJ in TDR, and was informed that the class I missed was the MOST INCREDIBLE CLASS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. I was really jealous -- it sounded right up my alley - intensely abstract intellectual discussion, an entire class striving together in the search of higher meaning. Not to mention, I loved the book. Well, we accept the consequences of our decisions.
Anyway, I'd like to springboard off of Anne's discussion of "interdisciplinary studies" -- I'm guessing this was delved deeply into during class, and I regret missing the discussion. At the risk of making a point that has already been debated and cast aside as silly:
It's really interesting to consider the proposed pedagogical system in contrast with our own. Especially taking into account the important role that mandatory education plays in our progressive (which I mean in the progress towards more advanced and efficient civilization, not a socially just one, etc) capitalist society, which is such a clear descendant of the Protestant Work Ethic dynamic which played such an important part in our discussion of Manifest Destiny. Imagine, for a second, that there was no societal coercion for getting an education. Jobs didn't require diplomas, nobody was judging you based on your formalized acquisition of skills and knowledge. Think of what percentage of your peers might never have set foot inside a classroom (and yes, obviously that's kind of Anne's point -- who needs classrooms?)
But also think what percentage of people who are currently working as chemists might never have discovered the field at all. I personally love chemistry, but would never have gotten beyond the most rudimentary understanding of it if I hadn't been coerced to by college admissions standards. I didn't ultimately choose chemistry as my professional paths, but I can imagine many who might have discovered the subject in much the same way and ended up pursuing it.
All this aside, my ultimate point is that I think mandatory education plays an enormous part in our system of social progression, and it's very interesting to consider what an alternative might do -- would it be more efficient because people are connecting one-on-one with their passions? Or would it just promote sloth and anti-intellectualism because the human race naturally tends towards these things, and we need institutionalized imposition of knowledge to overcome it?
Well, today I ran into PTJ in TDR, and was informed that the class I missed was the MOST INCREDIBLE CLASS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. I was really jealous -- it sounded right up my alley - intensely abstract intellectual discussion, an entire class striving together in the search of higher meaning. Not to mention, I loved the book. Well, we accept the consequences of our decisions.
Anyway, I'd like to springboard off of Anne's discussion of "interdisciplinary studies" -- I'm guessing this was delved deeply into during class, and I regret missing the discussion. At the risk of making a point that has already been debated and cast aside as silly:
It's really interesting to consider the proposed pedagogical system in contrast with our own. Especially taking into account the important role that mandatory education plays in our progressive (which I mean in the progress towards more advanced and efficient civilization, not a socially just one, etc) capitalist society, which is such a clear descendant of the Protestant Work Ethic dynamic which played such an important part in our discussion of Manifest Destiny. Imagine, for a second, that there was no societal coercion for getting an education. Jobs didn't require diplomas, nobody was judging you based on your formalized acquisition of skills and knowledge. Think of what percentage of your peers might never have set foot inside a classroom (and yes, obviously that's kind of Anne's point -- who needs classrooms?)
But also think what percentage of people who are currently working as chemists might never have discovered the field at all. I personally love chemistry, but would never have gotten beyond the most rudimentary understanding of it if I hadn't been coerced to by college admissions standards. I didn't ultimately choose chemistry as my professional paths, but I can imagine many who might have discovered the subject in much the same way and ended up pursuing it.
All this aside, my ultimate point is that I think mandatory education plays an enormous part in our system of social progression, and it's very interesting to consider what an alternative might do -- would it be more efficient because people are connecting one-on-one with their passions? Or would it just promote sloth and anti-intellectualism because the human race naturally tends towards these things, and we need institutionalized imposition of knowledge to overcome it?
Interdisciplinary Studies
I don't know if you all remember this, but way, way back when we were discussing The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I argued that anarchy was not an effective discipline for a university, and students with no rules would choose to learn less than their counterparts with innumerable tests and guidelines.
I want to go ahead and strongly disagree with myself. After our theological, political, sociological, linguistic, and mathematical debate on Thursday, I think that a wide-open anarchical learning system would have incredibly good results. Students would have to be provided with a lot of support, but it's amazing to imagine what would happen if everyone were permitted to pursue their own interests from very early on. People would have their first specialization by the age of 15, and keep picking up things for the rest of their lives. There'd be no stigma against math or economics or science as being "too hard": those who chose to study such areas would relish the challenge or find it easy. Likewise, all knowledge could be valued for itself, so there'd be no looking down on such "useless" subjects as English or philosophy (or science fiction): minds fine-tuned to learn and guide themselves would soon search out a job suited to their unique talents, or teach themselves the rules of any job they liked.
Sure some people would miss out on what our culture considers "basic skills." Some people would have below-average reading skills. Others would be lacking in math abilities. But I think that if we had a culture where anyone could learn whatever they wanted, everything would eventually work out. If math is considered a basic requirement to society, a math-less person who encountered trouble in daily life would find someone to teach them math to overcome that problem. People would learn about not only what interested them, but what related to their daily lives: a diabetic might be an expert on chemical engineering, but also on diabetes; a champion swimmer could quote you Shakespeare and explain the physics of a body moving through water.
And in this utopian anarchist learning-oriented society, people would do a lot of sitting around and talking. The popular novels of the day would be enjoyed not just for their stories, but for the quality of their writing, how they relate to world politics, and what they say about human nature. Groups of students from this society would hold regular discussion groups, their topics moving from religion to politics to trigonometry to the nature of reality as the mood struck them.
And this class has already had a taste of just how cool that would be.
I want to go ahead and strongly disagree with myself. After our theological, political, sociological, linguistic, and mathematical debate on Thursday, I think that a wide-open anarchical learning system would have incredibly good results. Students would have to be provided with a lot of support, but it's amazing to imagine what would happen if everyone were permitted to pursue their own interests from very early on. People would have their first specialization by the age of 15, and keep picking up things for the rest of their lives. There'd be no stigma against math or economics or science as being "too hard": those who chose to study such areas would relish the challenge or find it easy. Likewise, all knowledge could be valued for itself, so there'd be no looking down on such "useless" subjects as English or philosophy (or science fiction): minds fine-tuned to learn and guide themselves would soon search out a job suited to their unique talents, or teach themselves the rules of any job they liked.
Sure some people would miss out on what our culture considers "basic skills." Some people would have below-average reading skills. Others would be lacking in math abilities. But I think that if we had a culture where anyone could learn whatever they wanted, everything would eventually work out. If math is considered a basic requirement to society, a math-less person who encountered trouble in daily life would find someone to teach them math to overcome that problem. People would learn about not only what interested them, but what related to their daily lives: a diabetic might be an expert on chemical engineering, but also on diabetes; a champion swimmer could quote you Shakespeare and explain the physics of a body moving through water.
And in this utopian anarchist learning-oriented society, people would do a lot of sitting around and talking. The popular novels of the day would be enjoyed not just for their stories, but for the quality of their writing, how they relate to world politics, and what they say about human nature. Groups of students from this society would hold regular discussion groups, their topics moving from religion to politics to trigonometry to the nature of reality as the mood struck them.
And this class has already had a taste of just how cool that would be.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
And after class...
Following our discussion on class, I was wondering why we had such a problem defining religion. Its somewhat like the conversations I have had with people on the subject of love. No one knows how to define it of what are the special qualities that make it specifically so, but they know how to identify it. Religion is the same. We knows which things are religion, but it is hard to tell what would become a religion if we wanted to make one. How is it that the Culture does not exude qualities of religion? Perhaps they do. But they live not by a constant practice. There is still an individuality for each person that the Culture does not control which makes it less religious. I think religion is a control factor, to monotor populations. Generally they provide a set of moral standers for an individual but that is not required. Instead they provide a social frame work in which a person can live and die by. In this case I think the Culture is not a religion specfically because it avoids death. Religion is meants to explain what happens to us when we die so we do not have to constantly live our lives in fear. In this way I agree with Nishida is his explanations of easter and western philosophies combine. He explains that religious is not about creating moral obligations but instead to figure out the existenciel crisis. With this I must be in agreement.
A world of alternet reality
OMG I just realized I did not post before class. I am very sorry! Here were my thoughts going into the class discussion...
This option of storing the soul seems like cheating to me. How is it that people capture souls and then go on about their lives without them ever ending. Not to say that they are exactly souls. but if they are doesnt that create alot of problems for religion. Another book I read about a year ago (I cant remember the name but I will post it when i get home) was about this man who created a machien that detected when the soul entered and exited the body. When he found out this solved the problem of ethical abortions because one could see when the soul had entered the fetus. Now in the case of souls that never get to leave a body, what is the ethical way of dealing with people who cannot authentically be toward their own deaths?
(Sorry, here comes Heidegger). If a Da-sein cannot be toward its own death then it does not truely look toward its future. It is inauthentically being in the past and the present, as if the present will never end. Since there is no angst toward death, peoople do not really have care for themsevles. In this case people are more like objectively present things than beings who are in essence in wonder about their being. For me this is problematic. In order to truely exist in all spaces and times one must worry about a perminant death. Ethics does not work in this framework unless everyone dies.
This option of storing the soul seems like cheating to me. How is it that people capture souls and then go on about their lives without them ever ending. Not to say that they are exactly souls. but if they are doesnt that create alot of problems for religion. Another book I read about a year ago (I cant remember the name but I will post it when i get home) was about this man who created a machien that detected when the soul entered and exited the body. When he found out this solved the problem of ethical abortions because one could see when the soul had entered the fetus. Now in the case of souls that never get to leave a body, what is the ethical way of dealing with people who cannot authentically be toward their own deaths?
(Sorry, here comes Heidegger). If a Da-sein cannot be toward its own death then it does not truely look toward its future. It is inauthentically being in the past and the present, as if the present will never end. Since there is no angst toward death, peoople do not really have care for themsevles. In this case people are more like objectively present things than beings who are in essence in wonder about their being. For me this is problematic. In order to truely exist in all spaces and times one must worry about a perminant death. Ethics does not work in this framework unless everyone dies.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
On The Hub and Godness
I thought what Anne said about the Hub was interesting, especially her discussion on whether or not he's a God, and I'd like to expand a little more on that idea.
Semantically speaking, I don't see what there is to separate Hub from God-like status. His direct involvement in the lives of billions of people, his ability to control the fortunes of an entire planet.. he is in fact much more active, visible and identifiable than any God we've come in contact with. One could, perhaps, say that this very feature separates him from God -- that God is too much of an abstraction, and the fact that Hub can be quantified and explained keeps him from being a God, despite his omniscience and omnipotence.
There is, then, the matter of how one defines 'God'. If you adhere to a strictly classical notion of God, as being universally good, universally omnipotent, then Hub doesn't fit into the God category. His governing of the universe is more limited to human affairs; he can't bend and change the laws of physics, as we might perhaps expect God to be able to do. According to this definition, he is merely a highly-advanced technological construct.
But if you take a more humanistic outlook on the matter, and conceive of a God as any entity, either veridically existent or projected, that is believed in, trusted, or relied on by humanity (... or by Culture), then it becomes very easy to classify Hub this way.
It's kind of a small and nit-picking point, but one that interests me nonetheless.
Semantically speaking, I don't see what there is to separate Hub from God-like status. His direct involvement in the lives of billions of people, his ability to control the fortunes of an entire planet.. he is in fact much more active, visible and identifiable than any God we've come in contact with. One could, perhaps, say that this very feature separates him from God -- that God is too much of an abstraction, and the fact that Hub can be quantified and explained keeps him from being a God, despite his omniscience and omnipotence.
There is, then, the matter of how one defines 'God'. If you adhere to a strictly classical notion of God, as being universally good, universally omnipotent, then Hub doesn't fit into the God category. His governing of the universe is more limited to human affairs; he can't bend and change the laws of physics, as we might perhaps expect God to be able to do. According to this definition, he is merely a highly-advanced technological construct.
But if you take a more humanistic outlook on the matter, and conceive of a God as any entity, either veridically existent or projected, that is believed in, trusted, or relied on by humanity (... or by Culture), then it becomes very easy to classify Hub this way.
It's kind of a small and nit-picking point, but one that interests me nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
