Thank goodness someone is saying it. It needs to be said more, and louder.
An significant portion of philosophy is utterly irrelevant precisely because it fails to address human development. Even Existentialism, which seems to attend to development across a lifetime, rarely dwells with any seriousness on childhood. Kristeva's "subject-in-process" is perhaps the only model I've ever encountered that begins in childhood and considers learning and its systematization across a lifetime with any concordance with lived experience, physiological/neurological development, and interdisciplinary validity.
And this piece itself is rather limited, despite its claim to open up a much wider definition of "education" -- are we talking only about that which is systematized through public, communally funded institutions? Or are we also talking about churches? And the family home?
Learning and Education are not the same thing. Learning is an inevitable feature of the organism; "education" is a byproduct of managing a community of organisms.
It should also be noted that "Philosophy" itself, in the history of education, is today largely a dissociated branch of an older education system, the Trivium, occupying the space where Logic used to be found against its partners Grammar (Linguistics) and Rhetoric (Language Arts). Philosophy will have to contend with itself as an artifice of systematized education, which mainly and merely reifies itself within that system.
This article presents too limited an overview of the history of education, its developments, and the relationship between classical structures and more recent ones -- which is to say nothing of its fascistic and economic purposes in generating national identities and reifying power and capital. If attended through philosophy alone, it would be pointless -- psychology and sociology here are vastly more central to the issue, nevermind political science and biology. There is no such thing as "intelligence," for example -- IQ, as a measure of intelligence, is a byproduct of the standardization of the education system, not a natural phenomenon that the education system surrounds. And this objectification of intelligence is what produces the system that itself produces the concept of "abnormal" psychologies that are wholly systemic byproducts (things like ADHD and Giftedness).
G-factor, for example, is a fascinating example of how statistical output measures of the education system become translated into a priori conceptualizations of learning for that very system, closing a loop. G-factor is used to validate the quality of intelligence measures, but it is itself a product of measure of performance on intelligence measures... The mirror regards itself.
And at the core of education and learning is the issue of consciousness itself. If the leading theory of the day is Kastrup's Analytic Idealism, we're all in trouble. He would observe very quickly that the entire "dashboard" concept is a post-pubescent developmental feature of the mind, perhaps wholly a product of the later development of the prefrontal cortex. The mind is not the "mind" that the Kastrup discusses until late in neurophysiological development.
XanderOblivion t1_jeajya8 wrote
Reply to Philosophy’s blindspot | Education has long been ignored by contemporary philosophers. That is a myopic view that must change by ADefiniteDescription
Thank goodness someone is saying it. It needs to be said more, and louder.
An significant portion of philosophy is utterly irrelevant precisely because it fails to address human development. Even Existentialism, which seems to attend to development across a lifetime, rarely dwells with any seriousness on childhood. Kristeva's "subject-in-process" is perhaps the only model I've ever encountered that begins in childhood and considers learning and its systematization across a lifetime with any concordance with lived experience, physiological/neurological development, and interdisciplinary validity.
And this piece itself is rather limited, despite its claim to open up a much wider definition of "education" -- are we talking only about that which is systematized through public, communally funded institutions? Or are we also talking about churches? And the family home?
Learning and Education are not the same thing. Learning is an inevitable feature of the organism; "education" is a byproduct of managing a community of organisms.
It should also be noted that "Philosophy" itself, in the history of education, is today largely a dissociated branch of an older education system, the Trivium, occupying the space where Logic used to be found against its partners Grammar (Linguistics) and Rhetoric (Language Arts). Philosophy will have to contend with itself as an artifice of systematized education, which mainly and merely reifies itself within that system.
This article presents too limited an overview of the history of education, its developments, and the relationship between classical structures and more recent ones -- which is to say nothing of its fascistic and economic purposes in generating national identities and reifying power and capital. If attended through philosophy alone, it would be pointless -- psychology and sociology here are vastly more central to the issue, nevermind political science and biology. There is no such thing as "intelligence," for example -- IQ, as a measure of intelligence, is a byproduct of the standardization of the education system, not a natural phenomenon that the education system surrounds. And this objectification of intelligence is what produces the system that itself produces the concept of "abnormal" psychologies that are wholly systemic byproducts (things like ADHD and Giftedness).
G-factor, for example, is a fascinating example of how statistical output measures of the education system become translated into a priori conceptualizations of learning for that very system, closing a loop. G-factor is used to validate the quality of intelligence measures, but it is itself a product of measure of performance on intelligence measures... The mirror regards itself.
And at the core of education and learning is the issue of consciousness itself. If the leading theory of the day is Kastrup's Analytic Idealism, we're all in trouble. He would observe very quickly that the entire "dashboard" concept is a post-pubescent developmental feature of the mind, perhaps wholly a product of the later development of the prefrontal cortex. The mind is not the "mind" that the Kastrup discusses until late in neurophysiological development.