Pragmatism

INTRODUCTION Philosophy is a hypothetical interpretation of the unknown. It is a point of view that provides a logical, rational, and valid basis for educational effort and criteria for the selection of a sound educational practice. Philosophy of Education Educating children profoundly affects their lives and influences the life of anyone who comes into contact with those children. Education provides a foundation for a child to start his life. Without a true education, it becomes impossible for an individual to provide for themselves and their family.

Also, well-educated people can make decisions that benefit both their own interests and the interests of society as a whole. In some cases, philosophies of education do contradict and oppose each other, like for instance, idealism as opposed to the philosophy of naturalism. In fact we cannot question it because they have different points of view as regard to education. STATEMENT OF POSITION Pragmatism is the philosophy of practicality and usefulness. Pragmatists see the world as a place for experience of all kinds.

Pragmatism believes changes in education and opposes traditional education. Gaining of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not the real aim of education. This philosophy focuses mental, religious and aesthetic forms of human activity. , I would go with the philosophy of pragmatism. For me pragmatism is shooting two birds in one stone, you are thinking and you are putting it into action. I don’t prefer a class sitting, writing, and reading books only, without applying it.

The effectiveness of our ideas, statements and concept must be seen on our actions. In pragmatism, schools and other educational institutions are flexible, they can remain alive, active and satisfy the changing needs of the society and provide real experiences through activities. It is not only a center of education but a center of community because a school that inculcates the philosophy of pragmatism is a true representation of a society. Pragmatic teacher are the one who first succeed in the teaching-learning process.

The teacher acts as a friend, guide and philosopher to the child to gain close and positive relationship so that it is easier for them to teach and handle problems in the teaching process. As an experience-based philosophy, the curriculum includes useful activities, experiences and subjects that are useful to the present needs of the learner and also for the future expectations of adult life. It also contains skills to develop the learners which develop social and purposeful attitude. They oppose bookish knowledge and condemn those methods which promote knowledge which is not useful.

The learners are keen to try things out; they want concepts that can be applied. They tend to become impatient with discussion type. They learn best when techniques are shown and they have the chance to try it out. They are also open to innovation as long as effective in the educational process. CONCLUSION Pragmatism is an attitude and a way of living which opposing the old doctrines of idealism and naturalism and inspire the individual to look ahead and create new values for an unknown future, so that he leads a better, happier and richer life.

The importance of studying pragmatism as a philosophy is to understand deeply the educational process. Each fundamental aspect has a basic function in the education process. To me an effective educator is, first and foremost, someone who genuinely cares about the quality of the education a student is receiving. My memories of great teachers always involve teachers who obviously put time and thought into actions with their lessons. They offered their time to students who wanted to improve.

I think that as an educator you should put into practice all the thoughts and bright ideas into action necessary to make your lessons thoughtful and hopefully fun Pragmatism serves as our guide in the educational process. Through this, we can also have a brighter understanding on how education would be. It would probably a great help for us to have all this things for the fulfilment of our good towards education. References: Singh, Y. K. (2007). Philosophical Foundation of Education. New Delhi: A P H Publishing. Shahid, S. M. (2000). Philosophy of Education. Lahore: Majeed Book Depot.

Conservatives support Pragmatism over principle

Discuss.

Pragmatism essentially believes in a more practical behavior or form of policy, as opposed to an ideological principle. Conservatives traditionally favour pragmatism because it emphasizes the impact of applied ideas that have been tested over time- highlighting the importance of tradition (one major traditional conservative value. One-nation conservatives agree with the foundations of pragmatic ideas.

Whereas the New Right was heavily ideological- arguably, the application of Neo-liberal ideas with an emphasis on free-market economics (i. e. : heavy privatization in the Thatcher period) shows a radical change into applying newer principles. Traditional conservatives place a higher emphasis on pragmatic ideas- as these ideas have been tested over time (a conservative would argue that they work; they are product of years of continuity) thus humans are incapable and essentially limited in radically making theories themselves.

Their ideas may be based upon the idea of tradition; which aligns itself with the Darwinian belief that only the fittest policies have survived over the years- and have created what Chesterton called the ‘democracy of the dead’ which is much more reputable than todays ‘arrogant oligarchy’. Pragmatic ideas are preferred because they have continuously growing over centuries whereas principle would ensure instability- for example: the sudden abolition of the monarchy would heavily affect the public; because it’s nationally loved- therefore extreme principles of ideologies like communism would definitely cause imbalance.

This agrees with the Burkean view that a human principle can’t be superior to the pragmatic principle that has developed on its own- as the political world is ‘boundless and bottomless’ (as Oakshott said), essentially too complicated for the human mind to articulate principles efficiently. Furthermore, traditional conservatives disregarded the application of representative democracy as it was seen as being too radical in the early 19th century.

Although one could argue that these conservatives are unaware of the benefits that radical change could bring- it can be countered by stating that fair democracy was a product of years of supplementing the system (example: through many Reform Acts-1832, 1848,1867… etc. ); therefore this gradual and continuous change (that benefit pragmatic ideas) completely contrast the excessive change the immediate application of principle would bring.

Another sect of conservatives- One-nation conservatives clearly favored pragmatism but Disraeli realized the importance of ‘change in order to conserve’, which would satisfy the masses without significantly impacting the elitists. The 1867 Reform Act exemplifies that these traditional principles were supplemented for beneficiary purposes- for example: Disraeli thought reform would diminish the brewing hope of revolution and actually convince the supporters to support conservatives. Thus Disraeli’s pragmatism was non-conventional but still built up on practical ideas.

Moreover, the application of political principles by Thatcher led Macmillan to give the ‘selling of the families silver’ speech- this can create an illustration: the silver which has been accumulated over the years pragmatically has been radically excluded and unnecessarily cashed in. In contrast, New right conservatives oppose the idea of pragmatism but rather favour the principled ideas. The mixture of neo-liberal ideas used by Thatcher and the rise of neo-conservatism through Reagan who placed an emphasis on supply-side economics.

These ideas proposed something different- for example: Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign placed a large emphasis in less government interference in lives of people- which completely obstructs the traditional idea of organic society and social obligations. Although New Right affected people socially, its economic impact was excessive- as the ideas of neo-liberal economists like Hayek and Freidman who proposed leaving it to the market (like the father of economics: Adam Smith). Freidman once remarked ‘Governments never learn.

Only people learn. ’- so this was applied by Thatcher who met much opposition from public/even party members who believed in more pragmatic change and weren’t ready for such a radical one. These ideas created a rapid increase in unemployment numbers, realistically reaching 4 million in terms of relative poverty; this widened the gap between South and North- a pragmatic conservative would have altered their political policies in order to come to terms with the public yet Thatcher ocused on her original ideological principles. Thatcher went against many traditional conservative values that have been developing over the years. There was a rejection of social obligations and responsibilities which was traditionally emphasized; yet the increase in atomistic individualism and egoism. In her famous speech, she said: “there is no such thing as society”- this can itself exemplify that her beliefs are formed from neo-liberal political beliefs, rather than incorporating pragmatism.

An idea that evolved form an organic society; into what One nation conservatives’ idea of a paternalistic state- this was completely rejected which is evident in the increase in privatization of industries in order to ensure profit. Although one could argue that the application of this was essentially required- for example before Reagonomics, the economy was in its worst shape since the Great Depression- therefore if these New Right ideas weren’t applied and more pragmatic ideas were used then progress would be stationary and the debt would rapidly increase.

Essentially, if we simplify the argument it’s just trying to, (a) bring change through principles, and, (b) do what pragmatism failed to do- so maybe, it’s just changing in order to converse. For example, if these free-market economic ideas are applied, they can eventually be successful- for example: Estonia, which was influenced by ‘Free to choose’ (Friedman) introduced a flat tax rate-it’s now very profitable and there is a boost in public satisfaction.

Although, arguably it wasn’t able to act pragmatically because it had just been released from the cruel soviet system therefore this doesn’t significantly illustrate the benefits of ideological principle- as it couldn’t purely work on Britain, for example: the Thatcher era: there was a boost in unemployment, poverty, frustration. In conclusion, on large conservatives believe in pragmatism instead of ideological principle- although when the economy is in a slump then the application of newer ideas can revolutionize the system, evident with the New Right.

However, Thatcher can be seen as an anomalous character in Britain- one could argue that David Cameron is shifting back to the pragmatic style of conservatism: with Big Society which will loosely reinstate social responsibilities. Although it’s equally arguable that New Right had an impact on New labor thus principle could be significantly important (as it was famously called: “Thatcherism with a human face”). Furthermore, on a whole, conservatives based their views on pragmatic ideas as opposed to ideological principles.

Don Quixote is about an old, retired man named Alonso Quixano. He spends most of his time reading chivalrous tales-so much so that he hardly eats or sleeps, causing people to think he has lost his mind. One day, he decides to become a knight and go out in search of adventure. He renames himself Don Quixote de la Mancha, and his horse Rocinate. He enlists Sancho Panza, a neighbor, to be his squire, promising him governorship of an island. The two sneak off in the early dawn, and the adventures begin The first example of idealism vs. ragmatism was in the opening scene. A young Alonso is shown outside in a field playing and talking to himself, pretending to slay some enemies. His fantasy is shattered and he is brought back to the real world when his mother calls him inside to go to bed. The next example comes when Alonso is talking to his friends, who happen to be workers. He is optimistic that all of their lives could turn around and that there is an even bigger world full of opportunity out there just waiting to be discovered.

All of his friends are realistic and tell him that they are going to be working for their entire lives. Next, Alonso Quixano wanted to be a knight. The barber was over at his house to give him a shave, and everyone was in the room. He started talking about his dreams of being a knight, and everyone laughed at him, telling him to just let the barber shave him. He ignored them, though. He ran outside and made his plans with Sancho Panza to escape and find an island to govern. This brings us to our next example of idealism vs. pragmatism.

Alonso and Sancha take off on their horse and donkey, respectively. Remember, they are in search of an island. They will not be able to get to an island on their animals. After this, Don Quixote de la Mancha thought he would bring glory to himself and Sancha Panzo by killing the “giant monsters” that they ran into on their way to an island, when in reality the monsters were just windmills. He also thought a bleating flock of sheep were an army of singing soldiers. As you can easily tell, idealism and pragmatism are both extremely strong and important facets of Don Quixote.

Introduction

This book by Treverton (2009) is argued here to be a vitally important area of work that looks specifically at the way in which the use of intelligence has naturally had to change as a result of modern society. Interestingly, although there is a clear aim not to apportion blame specifically for the recent atrocities, the author indicates that he feels there is a link between the United States and their flawed approach to intelligence and the high profile terror attacks that have taken place in the US. Significantly, the author is very careful not to apportion blame or finger point and maintains a balanced and critical approach when trying to establish a link and to look at the role of intelligence.
Main Arguments Presented

In this book, the author actually goes on to break down the failures, in order to try to identify the impact that the specific shortcomings are having on the magnitude and nature of the target of the threats. He recognises in this analysis that, in many cases, the intelligence approaches are enshrined in the Cold War security approaches of looking at the organisation and the tactical decisions of the intelligence offerings, rather than focusing on the actual threats that are being faced in the current climate (Riley et al 2005).
One of the main aspects of the book which provides added value to the information that is being presented is that, although the author spends time identifying the failings, he also spends some considerable time looking at the way in which the changes he suggests could be implemented, in practice. As a professional with experience in the field, this shows and adds considerable value to what would otherwise be a potentially academic discussion.
In order to achieve this, the author takes a very pragmatic view, with the initial stage being to look at the nature of the risks that are looking at being targeted from intelligence operations. He states that recognising the threats is the first step towards then being able to recognise the way these should be handled. It is this pragmatic approach which looks at both the practical reality and the academic study that makes this book so informative in the area of intelligence being used in the terror context.
The author follows themes and after identifying them he then goes on to look at how intelligence should be reformed to deal with the modern challenges. In order to identify the best way to deal with intelligence and to look at the reform of intelligence culture, there is a need first to consider the actual route of the threat and where it emanates from. One underlying argument and theme which is presented by the author here and which adds particular value to the discussion, in the opinion of the reviewer, is to look at the role of the nation state as being at the root of the changing dynamic. For example, during the Cold War, the focus of terror attacks was typically nation states and as such the intelligence gathering focussed on these entities. As time has passed, the nation states have become much more than simply target areas. Nation states can often offer a great deal of information that adds to the knowledge and understanding of the general issues of intelligence. Increasingly however in the modern context, the non-state actors play a vitally important role and it is argued by the author here that much of the role of the modern intelligence officer is to look at understanding the distinctions and various nuances that exist within these non-state actors, in such a way that their own motivation and actions can be better understood (p.141)
Linked to this thread of discussion and again a vitally important aspect of the role of intelligence is that there are considerably more individuals, groups and entities that are involved in the area of intelligence gathering to prevent terrorism. With this increased number of people involved, the author places a great deal of focus on the idea that, whilst agencies may well have the technology to share information, they do not necessarily have the appropriate policies in place and therefore the underlying policies need to be reviewed, if modern challenges are going to be dealt with.
As an overall position, the author maintains that there needs to be a reasonable means of supplying information across all relevant actors and to ensure that the information which is being presented is relevant and measured, so that the correct people can react quickly and appropriately.
By focusing on some of the practical difficulties faced in the current climate, it is argued here that the author gains a much higher degree of legitimacy than other academic analyses in this area may achieve; in particular, the author recognises that it is necessary to take a balance between the need to improve security, but also to provide privacy and security for individuals’ information (Snowden, 2002). He notes that paying attention to legality and legitimacy is in fact increasingly important to the anti-terror efforts and that there then needs to be a total review of the policies associated with anti-terror activities as the main way of managing and combating such issues. He supports this by suggesting that factors such as encouraging intelligence authorities to create a method whereby they can share information with other entities in a constructive and balanced manner is as important, if not more so, than the actual intelligence itself.

Conclusions

On balance, it is argued that this book presents an interesting and well informed opinion on the modern challenges facing the intelligence industry. By being an author who has practical experience in this area, it is suggested that this allows the text to gain legitimacy and also to take a more rounded view of the challenges being faced. Finally, providing practical and well backed up suggestions for the future means that this text presents real value to the area of intelligence and counter terrorist activities. It is concluded, therefore, that this is a well-balanced and informative text that fills a gap within the current understanding of the intelligence industry.

Reference

Riley et al., (2005) State and Local Intelligence in the War on Terrorism, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation
Snowden, D (2002) Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Self-Awareness, Journal of Knowledge Management, Special Issue, September.
Treverton, G. (2009). Intelligence for an Age of Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A comparison on two theorists John Dewey – Rudolf Steiner There are many theories and philosophies that have come and gone some which are still widely used today. Each human being has a mind of their own and it is because of some individuals that we are able to learn progress and teach in so many different ways. Comparing different methods, teachings, theories and ideas allows our mind to reason and understand more than Just our own point of view. In child development there Is so much to learn, each child is unique and because of this uniqueness we an not only have one pattern of teaching for every child.

Every child needs to have the opportunity to succeed and progress to the best of their personal ability. I would like to compare two very intellectual and profound individuals who have expanded the minds of many people. John Dewey, a believer In Pragmatism and progressivism. HIS view was that you would develop and learn by using the mind to think and to physically do. To prepare and enter society well equipped, mentally and physically. ” I see the aim of education as the development f the Individual to function as part of a society and to contribute to the on going formation of that society’ John Dewey was born In Vermont USA In 1859.

He was mainly known to people about his views and philosophies on the educational system. He however shared his views about many other topics such as ethics, social theories, metaphysics and more. At the end of the nineteenth century in the United States of America a new philosophical movement started which they called Pragmatism. This was to Join intellectuals who had views, opinions and philosophical theories. The professors who suggested theories needed sufficient credibility and practicality without this they would be rejected.

John Dewey played a big role In this movement whilst also publishing his work in books and sharing his theories in many different places including universities. His thoughts on the educational system and child’s development really began to excel once he founded the University Laboratory School which became the “Dewey School”. This is where he taught his students to have an active mind, to become educational thinkers. He believed strongly In the process of growth and high principles of mental activity. Little did he know that his theories would continue to this day.

John Dewey did not believe in the rigid regimentation of the educational system which was in place and believed that each individual learner would exceed their personal best not by force but more by example, by experiencing and doing. Perfecting one self’s growth and being part of a system that saw school as a social community. John Dewey believed that good’ education should have a purpose In society and each Individual. John Dewey stresses the Idea that the quality as a member of society. “The belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative. Rudolf Steiner however did not see eye to eye with John Dewey on every level. They both had a deep passion for the wellbeing and development of human beings yet had different views on how to reach that successful stage in life. Rudolf Steiner, of Austrian origin was born in Croatia 1861. Being raised in a ‘natural’ countryside environment allowed him from the early age of 8 to reason in his mind about the endless possibilities the human mind can have, reaching a level of spirituality from young.

He is known today as the ‘Philosopher of Freedom’ he wanted to educate himself and others more on spirituality and the freedom in learning and developing. Rudolf Steiner envisioned the spiritual world as being as real as the physical world we live in. He devoted his life in search of answers, he started his quest by studying Science and Philosophy in Vienna. After years of study and personal growth the answers became clear to him that he had found a spiritual path which was to be called Anthropology. He believed that this would lead the spiritual in the human being to the spiritual in the universe. There is nothing more important for life, even for material life, than the strong and sure realization of communion with the spiritual world. ” Rudolf Steiner was a strong believer in the ‘Natural’ and ‘Holistic’ development in a child. Each phase of a child’s development needed nurturing, enriching and supporting, therefore, he believed that there should be three essential takes in a child’s development. Each stage lasting about 7 years, he put a lot of emphasis on the fact that not one stage should be shortened because of a set curricular expectation.

He believed if each individual developed at their own pace gradually learning every important life skill they would become well educated adults. His method of teaching was never to reach statistical highs but to reach personal growth. Each child would be taught and treated as an individual, with different levels and development speeds. The three phases are 0-7 which is seen as the ‘early holding’ phase, the second phase 7-14 which is the ‘heart of the childhood’ and last but not least the 14-21 which would be the ‘adolescence’ phase.

Each phase needs specific teaching and Rudolf Steiner made sure that there was a strong harmony in his teaching methods. This would be through artistic expression, dance (rhythmic), singing, play and many other forms of creativity. His teaching methods were not for the minority, this was a method he believed would be great for all of mankind. The spiritual harmony and togetherness he encouraged within schools would be inefficiency to every child, regardless of academic ability, class, ethnicity or religion.

We shouldn’t ask “What does a person need to be able to do in order to fit into the existing social order today? ” Instead we should ask “what lives in each human being and what can be developed in him or her? ” ‘ As I said in the beginning, each individual has a mind of their own. The most beautiful conclusion for me is that philosophers have pushed their mental ability to find and explain questions and doubts a lot of us have but cannot answer. I have found some truth and sense in answer but we can strive to expand our knowledge.

Both John Dewey and Rudolf Steiner made it their mission in life to educate themselves and educate us. I believe that each person can relate and understand both their theories to an extent, however, we have the freedom of choice. I personally prefer Rudolf Steiner, I attended his schools during all of my primary school years and his method of teaching I would never dispute. The personal, structured learning strategies Rudolf Steiner implemented are in my opinion the most natural way to educate a young person.