Talk:What educates?
From Studyplace
Contents |
[edit] Study
[edit] Generative questions originating the article
[edit] Key points to make
[edit] Key resources to draw on
[edit] Scope and tone of coverage
[edit] Talk
[edit] Distinguishing what educates from what miseducates
A key problem for me: How can one work out the distinction between what educates and what miseducates without concentrating on abstract nouns? I find that as soon as this distinction is introduced it demands a definition of what in fact is meant by educative activity - which calls for the definition of the noun education. Without concentrating on the definition of education the distinction between what educates and what miseducates seems close to meaningless. Say I were to say "Robbie, I think the New York Mets educate." Perhaps you might disagree. And then the only ground we would have to work out our disagreement would be a substantive discussion of what each of us means by educative activity - which is really a discussion of what in fact is meant by the noun education.
I understand and support the project of dealing with the question what educates. I think, however, that it has more strength when dealt with as a descriptive rather than a normative question.
neil 11:00, 27 December 2006 (EST)
- This is a rather delayed response, but I don't think the what miseducates question requires an abstract definition as much as it occasions a conceptual examination of concrete experience — "Hey, Neil, how have the Mets miseducated you? Did they make you waste your time sitting around in Shea? What was the problem?" Robbie McClintock 16:24, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
[edit] No Definition?
The focus on "what educates" rather than "what is education" may seem like a way of avoiding falling into a trap of abstraction, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent to begin to discuss how to do something without defining the thing we are doing.
This forum espouses a philosophy of pan culturalism. How can you possibly have a discussion about something like education with someone from another culture without having a frank discussion about what education means?
It seems to me to be akin to wanting to build a building without plans so that you don’t get stuck in the designing process. You can pour all the concrete that you want and feel like you’re accomplishing something, but ultimately you don’t know where you’re going.
Abstract thought is the foundation of action, not the antithesis of action.
- Interesting. Who said we are discussing how to do something? By distinguishing between the academic and professional one is suggesting that it is of value to study what something does (and what does something) in addition to studying how to do something. Also, what is the talk about no definition? People define verbs, in addition to defining abstract nouns, and they often define the verb simply by adducing the act and the name together. Furthermore, many important nouns, some about matters central in educational experience, are gerunds that derive their meaning (e.g.) from the verb, as in reading, writing, thinking (as do all those nouns that end with the -tion suffix). . . . Do architects begin with an abstract idea, or a careful survey of the site, knowdedge of the properties of potential building materials, and a clear understanding of the programmatic requirements of the clients? Robbie McClintock 17:04, 17 January 2007 (EST)
[edit] Experiential? Really?
I'm confused by this page. At present it encourages one to think about what educates from an experiential point of view. But is this consistent with the overall mission of StudyPlace? At present are experiential or intellectual perspectives given more volume? Is there not - at a bare, bare minimum - some combination of the two, warranting more of an intellectual frame to the question what educates?
neil 08:32, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- It seeks to me that the intellectual is an effort to form concepts by which we can interpret and explain the experiential in a useful way. The experiential invites an intellectual response and an intellectual response helps make sense of the experiential. Robbie McClintock 16:29, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
[edit] "diminishing" vs. "shifting" ignorance
In the discussion of "what educates" the place of "ignorance" is central. It is thus important that we pay close attention to implicit definitions produced by adjectives that are really metaphors. To talk about "diminishing" ignorance implies that ignorance (and thus knowledge) is a quantity. I take both knowledge and ignorance to refer to properties of the relationship between people, what they do, and the consequences of their actions. Knowledge would then refer to a past, ignorance to the future, and education to the present efforts to move from the past to the future--to the extent that this move involves some deliberation.
--Varenne 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
