In between stuffing my face full of bites of turkey, I delved into the philosophical readings we had for this week. Utterly distracted by my poultry prey, it took me a while to fully comprehend the ideas that it tried to get across, but I came away with some neat facts that I learned.
In learning about the major philosophical systems, I think the one that I loved the wording of the most was pragmatism. “Truth is what works”. In reality, that approach to life is very as-it-stands, and, as the text puts it, rather consequentialist. The idea that the result of actions is how you detemine right from wrong, and truth from falsehood.
Another thing I learned is that, no matter how I seem to try, when it comes to picking-and-choosing aspects of philosophical systems, political systems, education systems, whatever the case: I seem to be incapable of doing anything but remaining “On-the-fence”. I can see both positives and negatives in a lot of these systems. For example:
Conservatism Progressivism
Pro – Easier to teach, is very cut-and-dry. Focuses entirely on the student.
Con – Very little adaptability. As the text states: “They must know their students well”, referring to the teacher.
At first, I was a bit skeptical over why Sociology was a chosen reading – at first, I assumed it was merely knowing where we came from, in order to forge onwards better. And, well, it is, but it’s also so much more. In understanding where we come from, we not only understand our (and humanity’s) past mistakes, but we begin to consider how those mistakes impact our students, which is imperative when we’re considering both how to teach, and how to react.
This reading reignited a bit of an old flame, as the instant I saw a reference to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, I was drawn back to high school, first learning about that. For whatever reason, it fascinated me at the time, and I believe that I’ll be looking into that in the future, just to research it more.
In regards to educational systems developing over time, I love the irony with hiring young, “underqualified” individuals, often women, as the text puts it. While not much was expected of these women, they performed astoundingly, which allowed schooling to move a big step closer to how it is today. This has interested me, primarily in the manner that I wish to look at the sociology of education in other countries. I believe I could learn more that way.
I think the question that I have after this is the question proposed by the philosophical text itself. To summarize:
“How should I take the philosophical systems, pick and choose which parts of them I want in my teaching, and how should I implement that?”
I believe that’s something that’ll prove worth it to answer.
The home of Strum Krutzz 