Coming out of a large state university, I thought I would keep my progressive existentialist perspective forever. But, the second day of student teaching had been a meandering disaster. Since that rude awakening, my philosophy of education began its evolution to its current state, a progressive essentialism. There are skills and knowledge students need to know to be successful in their lives. What the College of Education taught me was true, students learn best when the subject matter is related to their lives. I differ from some essentialists, especially those in the ultra-conservative “culturally literate” camp. Every activity should have a point, but the point should never be absolute acceptance of whatever is being taught. Rather, the students should question and listen critically to everything they learn whether it be how to find a main idea or the reasons America fought itself in the Civil War. With that said, preparing students to be successful and able to have choices should be every teacher’s goal.
The purpose of education is to teach essential skills and knowledge that will allow that student to make choices when he or she moves to the next level. Students are not encouraged to receive knowledge and the perspective from which the teacher comes, but each student should be encouraged to question and decide for him or herself. These essential skills should lead to options like advancing to the next grade and be able to successfully matriculate in the next grade or, as the student grows older, being able to decide between employment, entrance into college or the armed forces, and being able to be critically aware of the world. Students should learn these skills by various interactions with the subjects that correlate with a wide variety of Gardner’s intelligences. To teach these skills, teachers must conclusively be able to relate each to their students’ lives. Read more…
There are three main ideas when it comes to the philosophy of the American Constitution. The first one is your natural rights as a human being in a society. The second is republicanism, which unlike your natural rights emphasizes the community instead of one person. The last would be constitutionalism, that’s the idea that there are definable limits on the rightful power of a government over its citizens. With all three of these ideas we were able to write our Constitution.
John Locke said that the absolute rights of people were the basis of all fair and just governments. Just for being a member of the human race entitled all individuals these rights. The authority from the government comes from the consent of the governed people to use their authority to secure and guarantee their natural rights to life, liberty and estate. Life without government is unstable because without government there is no authority to say what the law of nature demands. Since not everyone will follow the laws of nature, everyone is insecure about their rights as a person. In Locke’s eyes, the problem lies in the simple fact that creates the demand for government at all, The fact that all people are imperfect. They disregard the laws of nature for their own personal gain. Thomas Jefferson didn’t mean all men were created equal in the literal since. What he meant when he said that was no one can claim to be superior and try to control the rights of others.
Read more…
John Locke’s ‘Essay concerning Human Understanding’ (last edition 1705) is widely held to be one of the most significant philosophical works in the history of ideas. Regarded by most as the first British empiricist, Locke sought to explain and understand what we can know, or how knowledge of the physical world is achieved. His fundamental premise was that information is acquired through the senses (sensation) in the form of simple ideas, and is then reflected upon using the power of reason, simple ideas that are in agreement with each other thus produce knowledge. Such a proposition was revolutionary at the time of publication, as the accepted doctrine regarded knowledge as planted in the human mind at birth by God. Locke’s philosophy directly challenged this belief by using the distinction of primary and secondary qualities to show what it is possible to know of the physical world around us. Such a distinction (also used by Boyle and Descartes) relied upon a corpuscular theory and was argued by Locke as an explanation of how our senses provide us with knowledge – an argument that ultimately led to the rejection of innate ideas. One of the main criticisms of Locke’s theory arises from the idea of indirect representation, as he challenges what we really can know of our physical reality. Locke’s explanation of the substratum (the thing in which qualities are contained by) is also a point of contention for philosophers as it is considered largely indefensible. Read more…
