Why not? It provides a way to mold behaviors (which, in an extreme form of behaviorism, is all there is to mental states anyway), and so the acquisition of new behaviors would be (all there is to) education.
What I remember from my philosophy courses is the spirited debate, lively dialogue. For me this site is too question-and-answer, like the Stanford Online Encyclopedia that is often pointed to in the responses. Is there a place on the web where I can find a more dialogue-based form of philosophy?
Sounds to me like you want something like a philosophical chat room. I don't know of any of these, but I would probably avoid them even if I did know of them. My experience with this is that too many people out there are too often to "discuss philosophy" when they haven't much of a clue as to what it is. But you don't have to share my prejudices!
Is the claim that education is a universal right a morally defensible claim? I have heard many people claim that education is a priviledge or a commodity, and they have quite convincing arguments. They say that because teachers need to be paid, and books, computers, etc. need to be purchased, that only those people who can afford it (or who can borrow the money for it) should have access to education. Although this conclusion is unsettling, I cannot seem to think of any reason to deny its validity, nor can I find a solid argument defending education as a right.
There is a saying among philosophers: "ought" implies "can." The application of this maxim to your question is as follows: It seems that anything that deserves to be called a "universal right" would be something that ought to be provided to everyone--no exceptions. But this could not possibly be true about education (or anything else, under the maxim) if the way the world is, as a matter of fact, makes it impossible, as a practical matter, actually to provide what such a "right" requires. So we might think about the question of whether or not there are people whom we simply can't provide with the resources necessary for the kind of education we might reasonably wish we could provide to everyone. Now, I think the question of whether or not we actually can educate everyone will depend on facts about sociology, psychology, and economics that I do not pretend to know. But I am inclined to think that the idea of educating absolutely everyone to the extent we might wish to educate them is...
Studying philosophy is always done from a certain perspective, with certain assumptions in mind. (Every century teaches philosophy in a different way). So, if I am interested in philosophy, but do not wish to adhere to a specific set of beliefs - what do I do?
What you do is approach the subject with the same mindset as the one advocated long ago by Socrates, who claimed that his greatest wisdom was the recognition that his wisdom was "worth little or nothing." So study the important philosophers of every age, and when some of what they say seems reasonable, it is OK to accept it...but do so with a sense of provisionality . "Seems right, but maybe someone else could find a way to show that it's not." This is also called "epistemic humility," and thosse who manage to have this virtue are much less likely to be seduced into false beliefs or ideologies.
Study logic. Then study more logic. And then...study a lot more logic. And then hope that the world (and job market) somehow gives you the opportunity to study and do logic for a living (because if you are distracted with other things, you will never be as good a logician as you could be with logic as your vocation and avocation, which is how muct academics feel about their subjects.
Ok,this may sound like a stupid question but I'm just worried about my marks.
So,next year I'll be in High School and it will be my first year studying philosophy.
All my friends say: " Oh,philosophy it's SO hard!" or "If you don't work a lot you will get negative marks.." and etc,.. I'm just starting to be worried about it. I think it's normal that someone that goes to high school worry about new subjects,difficulty levels,.. But I'm just too worried!
I consider myself an inteligent person but I'm afraid of failling Philosophy and it ruins my marks! I think I may be a bit "dumb" or immature to understand all that "complicated thoughts" .Although I have no idea what I'm going to learn lots of people say I need to have a great reasoning and know how to express what I'm thinking. And I think that's the big problem because I think I've got a good reasoning and I'm good at writing (I'm good at English,Portuguese,..) but I'm just bad when I wan't to make another person understand what I'm thinking :S
Many people do find philosophy quite difficult, but most people find that doing philosophy at least at some level is profoundly natural and fundamentally human. Aristotle said "philosophy begins in wonder." I think that's right. So my advice to you would be to allow your "wonder" not to be stunted by the artificial limitations of worries about grades. If you do start doing badly, have a chat with the teacher to see what you can do to improve. But here is something you probably already know: You do better at things when you find a way to enjoy them. This can be hard, yes; but it can also be great fun and very interesting...actually wonderful . So try to enjoy it, rather than fretting about grades!
Are those Republican criticism against women's studies and black studies programs valid at all?
Are there "real" philosophers arguing for their abolition?
"Real" philosophers argue for nearly every position articulable! But I think the kind of issue that is most likely to come up among philosophers and other academics about such programs is more likely to be about resources. Resources for higher education right now are extremely limited, so judgments about the money required for academic positions and operating budgets to sustain such programs must always be made in the context of competing needs and demands from other academic units. Administrators must always confront the very real problem of where the scarce resources will bring the best value to the institution. Moreover, different institutions have very different identities and missions. For an institution mostly dedicated to providing the kinds of education that will advantage their students vocationally, for example, such programs arguably do not fit well into that institution's mission. Where liberal studies is the institutional mission, then such programs would seem to be more viable...
I am in something of a quandary. My passion, my drive, my greatest zeal is for philosophy—for the pursuit of truth, for understanding, for learning. These things, and especially the philosophical pursuit of them, are what I consider to be most worthwhile in this life. To this end, I would like nothing more than to take part in the scholarly life of philosophical academia. I am now in a position to pursue this dream—to perhaps enroll at a prestigious philosophy graduate program.
I hesitate, however. My reason is this: My mode of life has always been somewhat reclusive, and I must say I spend the greatest part of my time thinking about things which, I have found, the great majority of my peers simply do not care for. Due to this, and perhaps as well to my penchant for analyzing everything, not merely what is properly considered philosophical, I have earned what would be considered by most to be a handicap in this (American) culture: I have not learned how to interact, how to make friends—how to relate to...
Well, perhaps it will reassure you to know that there are several jokes about philosophers as social beings. One of my favorites is a cartoon labeled "philosophers at a party." All are staring off in space, obviously pondering some abstract question; none are interacting with anyone else in the room. Maybe you have also seen Monty Python's soccer match involving philosophers--again, all are so lost in thought they cannot manage to engage in the contest at all (until somehow Socrates figures out what he is supposed to do). So, OK, maybe we are not generally all that much fun to party with, and philosophers notoriously question others in areas they would prefer not to be questioned, which can cause a degree of social friction. But I guess I would caution you about allowing this stereotype (which I grant may have some basis in truth) to allow you to think of what you call your "quandary." To be more specific, if you have deficits in interpersonal skills, these will also create problems...
What should be the purpose of an education system as a whole? By this I mean particularly the direction given to it by its national curriculum. Is it to produce the next generation of plumbers and bank tellers, in effect to ensure that society continues to be productive? Or is it to develop society as a whole, to raise the average level of intelligence and enlightenment within it and, at the heights, push back the boundaries of human understanding? Because it seems to me that whilst these two aims are not mutually exclusive, only the former is being carried out within the UK.
Didn't I just respond to another of your questions on a related subject? I think so... I think the best answer to this question is "all of the above, and a great deal more." As I said, a great deal is asked of public education--constructively, it is suppose to advance knowledge and also to provide society with a better work force, as you suggest; negatively, it is supposed to fend off certain social ills we know to be associated with ignorance and lack of education. These various goals are often incommensurable and we seem to have no very secure ways of figuring out to everyone's satisfaction why we shouldn't be allocating our money and efforts in very different ways than we are now. I do not live or teach in the UK, but it strikes me as very harsh indeed for you to say that the system of education there is not helping to advance knowledge and to expand the boundaries of human understanding. In travels there, and in interactions with my British colleagues, I find no reason to think that...
In the UK (and perhaps in other countries) children with “special educational needs” receive a much greater proportion of an education authority’s resources compared to the average child. For example, the pupil-teacher ratio in special schools is 6.5 : 1 compared to 18.6 : 1 in mainstream state schools.
Is it right for the government to allocate more of its resources to those children least likely to contribute to the society which is paying for this education? Does every child have an equal right to an education in terms of quality, or should this equality be measured by the resources allocated to them? If resources are to be distributed unevenly to children based upon their circumstances, would it not be more sensible to spend the extra on gifted children, those more likely to contribute to society both economically and in terms of passing on education to the next generation?
I won't dare try to answer this question, because the issues involved are more complicated than I can handle. I will say, however, that your question presupposes that the only (or main, or most valuable) reason for public education is to enable and encourage contributions to society. I don't think that is correct. One very important project of education is negative--it helps us to prevent certain social ills and other things that are far less costly to educate away than to deal with later. Any very complete answer to your question would require the following: (1) A complete enumeration of all of the goals public education is to serve. (2) A prioritization of the list accomplied in (1). (3) An reliable assessment of the financial costs involved in achieving (and in failing to achieve) each item on the list of priorities. (4) A reliable assessment of the social costs in achieving (and in failing to achieve) each item on the list of priorities. (5) Because we may well find that we can...