|
|---|
This is an open forum where topics are supposed to be discussed rationally while respecting the opinions of those who might disagree with you. This forum does not allow the deletion of comments to your posts, even though you may be in complete disagreement.
The idea is that such comments will either reinforce your opinion, or open you to new ideas about it and perhaps help you to adjust it to one showing more understanding.
The exception to this is Flaming or blatant personal attack, which the Cafe will not tolerate.
Such remarks should be brought to the attention of a board member so that they can be documented and the flamer banned from the site. Please abide by this simple rule.
Our Board Members
tychecat,
BlackSockCerulean,
anniemomz,
thereluctantsinger,
sandstorms
Socrates
Café® Blog
Ring
Join our Socratic discourse.
For a complete index to previous Socrates Cafe topics, visit Simone's site and check her custom module.
Learn what you need to know about presenting your
ideas logically. Logical
Fallacies
The
Society for
Philosophical Inquiry
Copyright holders of Socrates Café. Good info on the
intent and purpose.
Read all about
it!
Socrates Cafe: A Fresh Taste of
Philosophy
By Christopher Phillips
Philosophy
Talk
Logical Reason on the airways.
|
|
| What has been the impact and how should we cope with the extremely rapid technological changes of the past century?
Roundtable members:
Soc: A critic
Marshall: A Professor
Jean-Paul: A Rebel
Jacques: A Modern Social Philosopher
Friedrich: An Inmate
Soc says: Sometimes humans have gone for centuries without much changing in their lives. My time was one of much ferment of ideas and experimentation in forms of government; but it did not hold a candle to the Twentith Century of the Christian era. While amazing changes took place in the tools of living, humans had a very hard time coping with new conditions and tools which drastically changed their lives. How could they have handled the impact of these changes better?
Friedrich says: These changes were merely a step on the road of human development. Man is the meaning of the Earth - he is dancing on a rope stretched across the abyss between the animal he was and the creature he is destined to become. The pace is increasing and only the most fit will make the crossing. What will the next step be? Will it be faster? More dramatic? More daunting?
Jean-Paul Says: Is Man the meaning of the Earth? Or does he merely delude himself that his observation of the cosmos is what gives it meaning? Perhaps the rapid social and technical changes we see are signs that humans have outdone themselves. We have reached a point where we can no longer adapt our present Institutions to the current reality - but then man has always been good at self-delusion.
Jacques says: I agree with you. The new technological society is fast corrupting and submerging those characteristics and traits which made us individuals and indeed human. How can we cope with a world-wide technique which allows us real-time connection with almost everyone in the world; or one which allows everyone to visit everyone else within a day or so?
Marshall says: The medium or process of our time - electronic technology - is reshaping and restructuring patterns of social interdependence and every aspect of our personal life. Everything is changing - you, your family, your neighborhood, your education , your jobs, your government, your relation to others - and they're changing too dramatically , too soon.
Societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media of communication than the content of communication. The alphabet and printing fostered and encouraged a fragmenting process - one of specialism and detachment. modern electronic technology fosters and encourages unification and involvement. It is impossible to understand social and cultural changes without a knowledge of the workings of the new electronic media.
Our age of anxiety is in great part the result of trying to do today's job with yesterday's tools and understandings.
The main question is: How do we grasp and understand these new tools? Is it too much too fast ?
Soc says: Jacques, what do would you have us do, ignore or reject the technological society and return to our more comfortable and understandable 19th century world? Is that even possible?
Come now, you people - How can we best cope with this too-fast and too-shocking future?
| | |
| Soc: My fellow conversants have reminded me that I have aimed this discussion in the wrong direction - they all want to discuss WHAT should a nation have its children taught, not how should they be taught - so I've invited a couple of other thinkers to the table:
Soc: A critic
Edmund: A politician
Martin: A preacher
John: A teacher
Ben: A journalist
Joseph: A ruler
Soc: One of my pupils thought that the ideal society would sort out its children pretty early and teach them according to their abilities and proclivities. He thought most would need little or no formal education - just training in respect for their betters and in doing what they were told. He thought up rather complete curriculums for the future leaders of the society and thought they should be carefully taught all the virtues and knowledge available. His ideas have been much elaborated on but remained the norm for a millennia.
Edmund: You mean he gave little heed to the majority of citizens, supposing that they would always follow the guidance of the upper classes? That was folly. A nation needs to have all its citizens educated as much as possible - part of that education should be careful teaching of respect for the elected government and appointed leaders - but each citizen should be educated to the extent of his ability
Martin: I agree, but a major part of that education should be a careful teaching of religious and moral virtues. He should however, have the ability to read and discover these for himself - under proper guidance. Schools should always be under religious control.
John: Whoever controls the school curriculum, it should emphasize the development of the child’s intellectual ability - which she will learn at her own pace and discover for herself with proper guidance by a well-trained teacher
Soc: America is a nation where the proper direction of education has always been pretty confused.
Edmund: No wonder they have left it up to a hodgepodge of local, poorly selected officials with each state giving conflicting guidance. Is that any way to run any system?
John: It’s part of America’s democratic system, which after all has made it the greatest nation on Earth.
I am concerned about some modern trends, however.
Voters seem to despise and distrust teachers’ judgments about their pupils’ progress. All these local systems along with the state and national government demand more well-educated youth and seem to think that can be achieved by demanding that they score well on standard tests while at the same time demanding that all students complete at least HS.
Little thought seems to be given to individual student interests and abilities; and voters certainly are unwilling to give schools the funding they need.
Martin: I think you’ve demonstrated the problem of secularizing schools. A long as they have no moral and religious affiliation, but are just a part of secular government, they will always be at the whim of tax collections and foolish misguided elected officials.
Edmund: In a multi-denominational nation, no religion can be trusted to teach the children anything but that particular religious sect’s beliefs - that’s best left to Sunday School.
Soc: You have all strayed from the question. How should children be taught - and what should they be taught?
Edmund: That which confirms their loyalty to the state and which make them a productive citizen.
Martin: That which soothes and saves their souls - and makes them happy, moral, and productive citizens.
John: Your demands are much too simple. Each individual student should be developed to the fullest extent of his capability - that will make him the most productive and useful citizen possible
Soc: Yes but how do you do that, supposing you think those should be the proper goals of education?
Perhaps some of our readers might have thoughts on this subject.
Ben: Some years ago I proposed an Academy for the education of the youth of my state. I suggested a wide range of subjects offering vocational preparation as well as the customary classical languages and subjects for college preparation. I thought students should be offered writing, drawing ,arithmetic, accounts, geometry, astronomy, English grammar, composition and literature, rhetoric and oratory, logic, history, ancient and modern languages, sciences, history of invention, commerce and manufacturing; and agriculture, gardening, and mechanics.
I thought such a curriculum was proper for the well-being of both the students and the state. This was far more than other schools offered at that time. I guess the idea was a good one, the school is still in existence and going strong.
John: I'm not surprised, you were one of the greatest scientists of your, or any time - and that was just one of your talents.
Joseph: Certainly all those subjects (or most of them anyway) are necessary tools of proper well-disciplined citizens of a progressive state - but more important is how their minds and attitudes are developed. I ordered that all children's education begin as early as possible, we built pre-school nursery "creches" where the youngsters were taught how to be good soviet citizens - the toys were specially built so that it took two or more children to play with them. everything was done in groups and the children learned early on to subvert their own desires to the good of the group. Our very successful school system was carefully thought out and has become the model for "progressive" education in much of the world. We made rocket scientists out of peasants.
Martin: And at the same time created one of the most repressive regimes ever seen on this planet - you taught them to mock religion and morality.
Joseph: not if that morality furthered the good of the state - as I defined it.
Soc: How about the rest of you - What should our children be taught?
| | |
| I have a number of Philosophers, Pundits, Zealots, and Pupils waiting for their turn to comment on some of the Great Questions and Dialogs of mankind. Some are getting impatient - one or two have already jumped in to give their uninvited opinions - upsetting the invited commentators.
I think the next Great Question we will look at will be: How should a nation educate its children?
We can cover a good deal of ground here, from universal theoreticals to how your kid is doing and how bad his teacher is.
I'll take advise on which philosophers should participate in this one. God knows, they all have decided opinions. | | |
| WHAT IS THE NATURE OF TRUTH?
Soc: A Critic
Thomas: A believer
Will: A psychologist
Soc: The nature of Truth was explained once by one of my pupils in a rather long-winded and obscure way, but I think he was on to something. He said Truth could not be directly perceived by humans - it was as if we were chained in a cave so we could only see the shadows on the back wall of things happening outside and could never turn around and see true reality. We could only imagine it based on our ability to reason.
Thomas: Well, he was probably right about humans not being able to see truth properly but he was wrong when he equated truth with the material world. Real truth exists only in God’s will. The material world is just our incomplete perception of part of His Will. Reason and faith will help us to know Truth.
Will: I think real Truth is discernible - you just have to consider the scientific evidence and our practical experience of reality - we have no other way except reason based on our own experience to know truth.
Soc: Can’t humans imagine things which may be true, even if they have never seen them?
Will: I think all things, both real and imaginary are based on some individual experience - you might imagine a new combination of ideas but not a new truth not based on your own experience.
Thomas: All our ideas are just manifestations of our nature which was, after all, determined by God, just a that state we know as “Material reality” is.
Truth is revealed by God and only God.
Soc: Others are reading this, I’d like to hear some of their comments on the nature of Truth. | | |
| This new format seems to have caught some interest. I'll continue it for a while.
Which topic[s] would you like to see Soc & co. discuss next, I suggest you get in on the discussions - Soc will be the regular moderator but the other characters may change from time to time - depending on the nature of the topic.
Any suggestions about which historic philosophers and thinkers you would like to hear from will be gratefully accepted.
Anyone who thinks this is an easy format to develop is invited to try it and send me your efforts - maybe we can get some interesting discussions.
An example might be: "The nature of Reality" discussed by Soc, Descartes, and Thomas Aquinas (good luck with that one  ) | | |
|
Premium