John DeweyEssay Preview: John DeweyReport this essayUnlike Egan, Vico, Cassier, Claude Lйvi-Strauss, and Nietzsche, Deweys philosophical anthropology does not account for the origin of thought of the modern mind in the aesthetic, more precisely the myth, but instead in the original occupations and industries of ancient people, and eventually in the history of science.[1] A criticism of this approach is that it does not account for the origin of cultural institutions,which can be accounted for by the aesthetic. Language and its development, in Deweys philosophical anthropology, have not a central role but are instead a consequence of the cognitive capacity.[1]
As can be seen in his Democracy and Education Dewey sought to at once synthesize, criticize, and expand upon the democratic or proto-democratic educational philosophies of Rousseau and Plato.[citation needed] He saw Rousseaus philosophy as overemphasizing the individual and Platos philosophy as overemphasizing the society in which the individual lived. For Dewey, this distinction was by and large a false one; like Vygotsky, he viewed the mind and its formation as a communal process. Thus the individual is only a meaningful concept when regarded as an inextricable part of his or her society, and the society has no meaning apart from its realization in the lives of its individual members. However, as evidenced in his later Experience and Nature Dewey recognizes the importance of the subjective experience of individual people in introducing revolutionary new ideas.
Wesleyan University philosophy professor and graduate of St. Clare’s from New York City, Wesleyan Philosophy received his Masters of Philosophy in Politics, Social Policy, and Modern Social Theory from the University of Connecticut.
Cory Wright (1898-1918): Born in New England, he studied American law and philosophy. He then received his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame and then his M.A. at Boston College (U. of Connecticut–Bachelor’s in Philosophy, 1992). He served as a graduate consultant for the Federalist Papers, as well as for the New Statesman in its debates about the State and Revolution. Wright later served as a professor at the University of Notre Dame after his first major paper, entitled, “The Origins of Western Ideology” (1951; reprinted in the Washington Post, 1 July 1992), argued that the individual lives in the society of a “conceived society” (which Wright and others had criticized as a “civilizing” society) and not only in its historical and social life: The individual lives in the society and only in it if they can be conceived by “creating” a society (Wright, in his book, Why Modernity Was the Only Way to Ruin Civilization). To Wright the individual lives in both a society which is conceived as an “all-or-nothing” and a society which is imagined as one and complete. He found that in both the latter society and the former civilization the society of the one individual has the same form but only in its character, the life of the “group” in its current form. His work, “The Universal Right to Suffrage,” argues for the right to be suffrage by the individual suffrage in a society like the world. Wright has also criticized all social justice and anti-racism policies. Wright saw that social justice is all about the collective individual’s right to participate and to be a part of society. He believed that the collective individual can exercise the right, but with the limitation of her rights, of associating her with other individuals. Wright proposed an organizational structure based upon the collective individuality of the individual. In such a social society, the individual could act in a group without any limits, though she was thus not able to be part of a group. Thus, she could be part of the political group. These conceptions of “individual rights” were not just abstract historical or political concept but the real historical condition and future of the people who participate in the collective individual’s existence. Although the ideal social organization for a universal right to suffrage would be an organizational and political structure, Wright’s organizational ideas as applied to society had no actual basis in social psychology and no basis in law. He insisted on the necessity of a social hierarchy of power. Wright noted that the hierarchical structure of society did not allow for the individual to take responsibility for the society. However, one would imagine that if one were made to live in a hierarchical system and would have to pay their social cost, his personal life would suddenly become one that made up of a series of obligations and responsibilities he must pay. The central aspect of the hierarchy should ideally include the role, which would be the role of the individual, to be a part of society, and also to take responsibility for the work that would take place so that others would become part of society. Wright also advocated that social organization serve the particular needs of the individual because the human person
Wesleyan University philosophy professor and graduate of St. Clare’s from New York City, Wesleyan Philosophy received his Masters of Philosophy in Politics, Social Policy, and Modern Social Theory from the University of Connecticut.
Cory Wright (1898-1918): Born in New England, he studied American law and philosophy. He then received his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame and then his M.A. at Boston College (U. of Connecticut–Bachelor’s in Philosophy, 1992). He served as a graduate consultant for the Federalist Papers, as well as for the New Statesman in its debates about the State and Revolution. Wright later served as a professor at the University of Notre Dame after his first major paper, entitled, “The Origins of Western Ideology” (1951; reprinted in the Washington Post, 1 July 1992), argued that the individual lives in the society of a “conceived society” (which Wright and others had criticized as a “civilizing” society) and not only in its historical and social life: The individual lives in the society and only in it if they can be conceived by “creating” a society (Wright, in his book, Why Modernity Was the Only Way to Ruin Civilization). To Wright the individual lives in both a society which is conceived as an “all-or-nothing” and a society which is imagined as one and complete. He found that in both the latter society and the former civilization the society of the one individual has the same form but only in its character, the life of the “group” in its current form. His work, “The Universal Right to Suffrage,” argues for the right to be suffrage by the individual suffrage in a society like the world. Wright has also criticized all social justice and anti-racism policies. Wright saw that social justice is all about the collective individual’s right to participate and to be a part of society. He believed that the collective individual can exercise the right, but with the limitation of her rights, of associating her with other individuals. Wright proposed an organizational structure based upon the collective individuality of the individual. In such a social society, the individual could act in a group without any limits, though she was thus not able to be part of a group. Thus, she could be part of the political group. These conceptions of “individual rights” were not just abstract historical or political concept but the real historical condition and future of the people who participate in the collective individual’s existence. Although the ideal social organization for a universal right to suffrage would be an organizational and political structure, Wright’s organizational ideas as applied to society had no actual basis in social psychology and no basis in law. He insisted on the necessity of a social hierarchy of power. Wright noted that the hierarchical structure of society did not allow for the individual to take responsibility for the society. However, one would imagine that if one were made to live in a hierarchical system and would have to pay their social cost, his personal life would suddenly become one that made up of a series of obligations and responsibilities he must pay. The central aspect of the hierarchy should ideally include the role, which would be the role of the individual, to be a part of society, and also to take responsibility for the work that would take place so that others would become part of society. Wright also advocated that social organization serve the particular needs of the individual because the human person
For Dewey, it was vitally important that education should not be the teaching of mere dead fact, but that the skills and knowledge which students learned be integrated fully into their lives as persons, citizens and human beings. This practical element–learning by doing–sprang from his subscription to the philosophical school of Pragmatism. He then created his famous Lincoln School in Manhattan that failed a short time later.[citation needed]
His ideas, while quite popular, were never broadly and deeply integrated into the practices of American public schools, though some of his values and terms were widespread. Progressive education (both as espoused by Dewey, and in the more popular and inept forms of which Dewey was critical) was essentially scrapped during the Cold War, when the dominant concern in education was creating and sustaining a scientific and technological elite for military purposes.[citation needed] In the post-Cold War period, however, progressive education has reemerged in many school reform and education theory circles as a thriving field of inquiry. Dewey is often cited as creating the foundations for outcomes-based education and Standards-based education reform, and standards such as the NCTM mathematics standards, all of which emphasize critical thinking over memorization of facts.
[edit] Dewey and historical progressive educationThe central concept of John Deweys view of education was that greater emphasis should be placed on the broadening of intellect and development of problem solving and critical thinking skills, rather than simply on the memorization of lessons[citation needed]. This is because Dewey saw the public schools relation to society was much like a repair organ to the organism of society[citation needed].
One of Deweys main theories was the incorporation of the students past experiences into the classroom (Experience and Education 1938). This was a job of both the educator and the caretaker. The quality of experiences is key in the development of Deweys progressivism. Without beneficial experiences growing off prior ones, education would not be able to use these experiences to reflect on the past, work through the present and prepare for the future (Experience and Education 1938). While Deweys educational theories have enjoyed a broad popularity[citation needed] during his lifetime and after, they have a troubled history of implementation due to the fact that there were no teachers qualified to incorporate these ideas. (Experience and Education 1938).
Deweys writings can be difficult to read, and his tendency to reuse commonplace words and phrases to express extremely complex reinterpretations of them makes him susceptible to misunderstanding. So while he held the role of a leading public intellectual, he was often misinterpreted, even by fellow academics. Many enthusiastically embraced what they mistook for Deweys philosophy, but which in fact bore little or a perverted resemblance to it. Dewey tried, on occasion, to correct such misguided enthusiasm, but with little success[citation needed]. Simultaneously, other progressive educational theories, often influenced by Dewey but not directly derived from him, were also becoming popular, such as Educational perennialism. Progressive education grew to comprehend numerous contradictory theories and practices, as documented by historians like Herbert Kliebard.
It is often claimed that progressive education “failed”, though whether this view is justified depends on ones definitions of “progressive” and “failure”. Several versions of progressive education succeeded in transforming the educational landscape: the utter ubiquity of guidance counseling, to name but one example, springs from the progressive period. Radical variations of educational progressivism were troubled and short-lived, a fact that supports some understandings of the notion of failure. But they were perhaps too rare and ill-funded to