RE: Applying Values in Action: Theory and Practice

[paulmozina]

I am going to read the article you referred to above (pedagogical conundrum) -- then I'll get back to you.

Interesting how your tag usage restricted/censored.

You might find my article regarding John Tayor Gatto's interpretation of Alexander Inglis' "6 Functions of Secondary Education" interesting. https://steemit.com/history/@paulmozina/critique-on-gatto-s-interpretation-of-the-6-functions-of-secondary-education-discussed-in-the-ultimate-history-lesson-a-weekend

Thanks!

Comments

[rortian]

Thank you! I'll look at it and get back to you. At the moment I'm working on yvesoler's request that I explain myself to the folks around here!

"Interesting how your tag usage restricted/censored."

Yeah, that's my take also. I infer that they have other reasons for having rejected me than their claim that I'm off topic!

working...

[paulmozina]

Ok, I read your previous article https://steemit.com/steemstem/@rortian/dealing-with-the-myth-of-facticity and that was indeed required reading. Then I re-read this article and again highlighted the exact same passage I noted above in my first comment, as something to follow up with you on. Here is the complete paragraph from above.

For example, many of us learned as children to identify the idea ‘knowing’ with the idea ‘truth,’ but this presumption is not the best approach to achieving deep insights into complex subjects. Contemporary (postmodern) philosophy emerged when it became very clear to the world’s wisest philosophers and scientists that there’s no possible way that any linguistic description could manifest any confirmable truth about anything that we can’t observe directly."

Now, I don't mean to quibble, but are you saying here that if we can observe it directly, it may be a confirmable truth?

I think not, because in your previous article you said:

2 We ought never to be absolutely certain about the objective truth of anything that we do observe directly.

Point 2. We don’t sense objects directly
Let’s reverse the question: Why is it that we don’t and can’t perceive the whole truth about the objects which stimulate our senses, and what do we actually perceive instead?

This means that we can only perceive what we already understand; unfamiliar objects are unrecognized so we’re sometimes driven to speculation about what things might be.

Again, I may just be manufacturing a quibble here. Be that as it may, I found this article to be paradigm shifting and I'm looking forward to participating in #higherorderthinking.

[rortian]

"but are you saying here that if we can observe it directly it may be a confirmable truth"

No. The first part is the philosophical uncertainty (Kant, 1790's), and 2 is a psychophysical barrier to certainty (20th century) about perception. That quote just left out the second part of the story.

Thanks for asking!

Paul! You've picked up this stuff very quickly! Great work.

"I'm looking forward to participating in #higherorderthinking."

Membership is OPEN! C u there.

[rortian]

Regrets, Paul, but I'm just too preoccupied to accommodate all that information in the foreseeable future.

I think that If you're following my saga you'll sympathize.

However, if you want to discuss any particular issue with me that you can describe in a few hundred words, I'd be happy to participate.

So: "How is solipsism related to the postmodern approach?"

Hmm. That doesn't seem to me to be a simple question, Paul. Relating your views and mine on that isn't something I can do "off the bat"; I think that it would require some clarification of our respective contexts. I'm willing if you are; if so, please explain your understanding of solipsism (your perspective about it) and then tell me what you think about how what I've written might relate to what you've already considered. If you'd do that then I could work with what you'll have shared.

How does that sound to you?