RSS Feed

February, 2014

  1. Equality in Public Education: What are some options?

    February 28, 2014 by Daniel Friedland

    It comes as no surprise that our nation’s schools are unequal in terms of quality of facilities, teachers, and other resources. Just like every aspect of society, education is not really equal, although it certainly aims to be just so. Paul C. Gorski of George Mason University puts it well:

    “Education is the great equalizer. That’s what I heard growing up, the son of a mother from poor Appalachian stock and a father from middle class Detroit. If you work hard, do well in school, and follow the rules, you can be anything you want to be. It’s a fantastic idea. How remarkable it would be if only it were true…”

    The truth is that the national government plays a relatively small role in funding public primary and secondary education in comparison to state and local governments. The national government, for a variety of reasons, I am sure, has decided not to increase its contribution to schools in need, at least not to the necessary degree of inducing actual equality in primary and secondary schools across the nation. The government places higher value on other pillars of society, which is understandable given the variety of tasks with which the government is charged.

    However, education does not exemplify equality of opportunity, nor does it entail equality of quality itself, and this is a problem. Recognizing the problem, though, is the easy part. It is solving the problem that is the tricky part. Of course, one solution would be to galvanize the government into valuing education to a higher degree. If the federal government valued education more so than other pillars of society, it would undoubtedly receive more money. Persuading the government to change its values is difficult and painstaking, but the end result could be worth it in terms of the betterment of public education, as well as the improvement of public education.

    Realistically, the government could take hundreds of years to be persuaded into changing its priorities, so other solutions must also coincide with the large-scale reform movement. Smaller solutions, such as fundraising, community awareness, and other such small-scale aid could help tremendously to improve the state of public education, especially in poorer areas, such as slums in some cities, as well as underprivileged rural areas. Community awareness, for example, could cause members of the local community to raise money or otherwise support the improvement of a particular institution of public education within the confines of the specific locality. Awareness is always the first step towards action, and it is the crucial first step in this process,  especially.

    Another more controversial route to go would be distributing wealth across the nation more equally so as to promote equal means of education. This could entail national taxes that raise money for the primary goal of improving schools that are not to the standards of a high level of educational instruction and experience. There are other ways of distributing wealth more evenly, but this borders on socialism, a concept which most Americans fear and disdain.

    One of the easiest and most effective ways to improve public education, especially in the primary and secondary phase, would be to place a higher value on quality teachers. Teachers are almost undoubtably the basis for any child’s education. However, teachers in the United States are paid sparingly in relation to other careers such as those in the medical, business, or engineering fields. This is an unfortunate reality of our society, but it certainly CAN be remedied. If teachers were paid more and generally recognized more so for their role in shaping the future of our society, existing teachers would be more inspired to teach and those considering a career in teaching would potentially see more value in the field. Of course, increasing teacher salary would require more money from local, state, and federal governments, alike, which is certainly a concern to this approach. However, I would argue that investing in teachers in probably the most essential investment possible in the context of public education simply because teachers inspire, influence, and shape the future members of our society. They hold such an important role that often goes unnoticed by government and other citizens alike.

    All in all, there are certainly a variety of possibilities to remedying the lack of equality in public education, though all have both pros and cons.

    That’s all for now! Stay fly, and goodbye.

    -Dan

     

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/17/public-educations-biggest-problem-keeps-getting-worse/

     

    Category Civic Issues | Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 3 Comments

  2. Questioning

    February 28, 2014 by Daniel Friedland

    As the clock strikes 3:00 AM here in the Atherton study lounge, my mind wanders freely and probably somewhat irrationally. I have decided to take a brief hiatus from discussing and synthesizing the arguments of prominent philosophers in order to articulate some of my own musings. I think that this is an essential part of philosophy, more so than any other. Of course, it is important to study the ideas of others in order to gain some perspective, but ultimately each person must figure out what he or she believes and actively think and question all aspects of the world. So now, I shall let my somewhat sleep-deprived mind roam free to really think about whatever it decides to construct.

    So something that I have recently been tossing around in my mind is the idea of questioning, specifically what questioning is and whether or not it is important. Whether you are asking a question about a homework problem and questioning the purpose of life, you are always seeking to learn something new or achieve some decisive state of wisdom. We question all of our actions, the actions of others, and sometimes we even question why we are questioning those actions. I would like to try to argue both sides of the issue and really get to the root of whether or not questioning is valuable at all.

    First for the pro-questioning standpoint. Questioning is the reason for studying philosophy. Actively questioning the status quo of society or really any construct of perception opens the mind up to new ways of thinking. For example, I think of biology, which tells us that cells are the basic components of living things. That makes sense through our perception as humans, but what if we consider the possibility that we are the “cells” of some other greater entity that we are unaware of. Biological cells seem to function to maintain viability for themselves while also serving the greater purpose of composing the human being. Who is to say that we humans are not self-fulfilling creatures that serve some greater purpose that we know nothing about? That cannot now, nor ever be proven to be false by any scientific means. We are limited by our perception of reality, and nothing can circumvent that sad truth. The value in asking questions like these and thinking about things that seem unconventional is simply that it helps the mind to exercise and make new connections that make for a more open-minded, thoughtful person.

    My own counterargument to that preceding paragraph is simply that questioning serves no real, concrete, quantifiable purpose. Sure, expanding our minds sounds attractive to us, but that is not necessarily a valuable happening anyway. While questioning leads to new questions and expanded ideas, there is no actual destination that questioning can possibly reach. Because we are limited by are perception, questioning can be frustrating, as it leads nowhere in the end. As we continue to explore the possibilities of reality that our minds come up with, we are unable to actually reach any sort of answer, and we are almost always left with more questions than we started with. Therefore, should we even try to question anything because our efforts are fruitless nevertheless? That is certainly possible, in my opinion. In terms of the question of humans acting as “cells” of a greater being, I could counter-argue that this type of thinking has no purpose because we can never actually validate that assertion. Maybe we should just focus on what we know and experience around us and work within the confines of society and our own level of perception. Maybe that is more useful than questioning anything at all.

    Well, there you have it – my arguments for and against questioning reality. Decide for yourself which argument resonates more with you. Or better yet, don’t. Think of your own arguments, and try to develop your own internal philosophical conflicts. It can be fun!

     

    That’s all for now. Stay fly, and goodbye!

    -Dan

    Category Passion | Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 3 Comments

  3. Individualism: How do we achieve it?

    February 21, 2014 by Daniel Friedland

    Throughout your life, you have probably been told to “Just be yourself!” Individualism is something which our society praises (for the most part), and it something that a lot of people work towards. Individualism in the context that most people think about it relates to finding yourself and expressing who you are as an individual separate from all others in some distinctive way. And while we strive for this sense of individualism, we seldom think about how to achieve individualism or how to qualify it at all.

    When it comes to finding one’s individualism, two schools of thoughts come to mind. One, which is supported by both Plato and Emerson, states that individualism is a solitary concept in which the individual must be removed from society in order to find oneself. Emerson, specifically in “Self-Reliance”, advocates for solitary individualism because he qualifies individualism as a term synonymous to self-certainty. He believes that society hinders self-certainty because it conforms a persons beliefs by its very nature. In other words, he is saying, “How can someone be sure of themselves when other people oversimplify and impose customs and values on each blossoming individual?” This is certainly a valid question, but it pertains specifically to the conception of individualism as self-assuredness. Other conceptions lead to other questions.

    The second school of thought asserts that individualism must base itself upon societal entities. John Dewey argues this point in “The Lost Individual,” claiming that things like religion, politics, and other institutions are essential in terms of individualism because they provide the basis for all the values and other ideas we could have. Dewey appears to qualify individualism as association. Based upon this assertion, it makes sense that individuals should not be solitary. If individuals are not exposed to the ideas that societal institutions provide, then they have no basis for any ideas. In an argument with Emerson, Dewey might assert that self-assuredness risks narrow-mindedness. Without exposure to diverse ideas, individuals rely only on what they perceive personally, severely limiting their potential understanding of the world from other perspectives.

    Although these two means of attaining true individualism seem to counter each other, both means make sense following each person’s definition of what individualism is:

    Emerson’s Individualism = Self-assuredness

    Dewey’s Individualism = Association

    Which is the correct definition? That is hard to say because I believe the answer depends on the person and their circumstances. As a college student who is immersed in society in a variety of ways, I find it difficult to fathom solitary individualism because I cannot imagine who I would be without the influence of others. For that reason, Dewey’s idea of association resonates more with me. I believe that it is important to be exposed to ideas because in order to be the fullest and most genuine individual possible, one must realize other perceptions. The saddest and most frustrating thing for me is that I only have one narrow perspective on the world, which limits my understanding of it. But if I can get a glimpse into other perspectives, I feel that I can grow as an individual and assimilate those ideas with my own to the degree I see fit.

    Remember, this is all my opinion, which is ever-changing so feel free to disagree. Which quality of individualism resonates with you?

    Category Passion | Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 3 Comments

  4. Public Education: Personalization vs. Standardization

    February 7, 2014 by Daniel Friedland

    The American education system is something to which I can easily relate, as I take part in it by being a Penn State student. Unfortunately, many people do not question the current quality of public education because it is taken as an immoveable precedent which essentially serves its purpose. Currently, articles, debates, and other forms of media and communication explore a variety of subtopics and controversies within the broad scope of the American public educational system. Some of these issues include the debt accumulation for college students, the role of the teacher in education, and the relative autonomy shared between the variety of administrators and instructors in the educational setting. However, we first must ask, “What is the purpose of learning?” I do not mean public education, nor do I mean the institution of education in any form. I am referring to the purpose of learning as an entity completely separate from education.

    To me, the purpose of learning is to explore one’s consciousness through the acquisition of experiences. Learning certainly does not refer to the accumulation of the knowledge it takes to operate in American society, although the vast majority of people (on both sides of the aisle) seem to agree to this very conception. One of the most basic arguments of public education involves the value of learning, specifically, if learning is meant to be a personal exploration of the mind and the world or a standardized method to produce proper, hard-working citizens of the American economy. Regardless of my preconceived notions of what learning is, the institution of public education closely follows the latter conception of learning.

    As a public institution, education must be working towards the improvement of society, rather than the improvement of an individual, which is perfectly logical if we accept the fact that humans are social creatures who depend on societal entities and other associations to influence and shape who they are. Moving past all of the philosophical hullaballoo, the fact remains that public education is here to stay, and that is the basis for the rearing of young and adolescent minds in the United States.

    Even so, the question of personalization vs. standardization continues to play into today’s form of public education in this country. If the goal of public education is to produce responsible citizens of a nation who are devoted and willing to work towards its goals and defend its founding principles, is it better for students to all be taught the same thing? Or would it be better for each student to be taught differently according to his or her determined needs and (possibly) interest?

    Both standardization and personalization have obvious pros and cons. Standardized education allows for every child to have a completely equal opportunity for “success” in society because what each student learns is essentially the same, promoting the sense of equality on which this nation was based. Also, students who share the same educational background are more likely to relate to another and unify due to their shared experience, and unity is an essential aspect of the “ideal” American nation. Unfortunately, standardized education does not guarantee that each child will adequately acquire and apply the education he or she needs to thrive in American society. Some students learning quicker than others, as well as more effectively, and standardization within the context of public education merely ignores this blatant issue.

    On the other hand, personalization does allow for different students to learn in different manners and at different paces. This is certainly effective in producing productive citizens that are able to fulfill the variety of roles within a society. However, personalization does not generate citizens with similar mindsets, necessarily. The more diversified an education system becomes, the less likely it is to produce equally prepared students in terms of their relative preparedness for entering and thriving in society. Also, personalized education is not practical in that it is expensive and requires diverse teachers and learning equipment.

    Upon considering the pros and cons of each education method, it becomes apparent that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Legislators are currently debating WHERE in the middle public education belongs. Before exploring the solutions to the cons of both methods and prior to synthesizing them into one uniform methodology, it is important to recognize what the issues are so that they can be methodically resolved.

    I look forward to exploring the complexities of public education this semester and possibly deducing some sort of answer for myself regarding the vast issues encompassed by the topic. Thanks for reading!

    Stay fly and goodbye!

    -Dan

    Category Civic Issues | Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 3 Comments

  5. Wisdom Without Perception

    February 6, 2014 by Daniel Friedland

    All philosophers seek wisdom in some capacity, even if they do not believe it can be achieved. Wisdom in its broadest sense is the quality of being knowledgeable or using good judgement in regard to all things, and although absolute wisdom probably doesn’t exist, knowledge is certainly attainable. (We could discuss what qualifies knowledge, but I’ll save that for another time). For thousands of years, people have been searching for this quintessential form of wisdom and considering what it really means to be wise.

    Most historians and philosophers credit Plato as one of the most essential philosophers of all time, so it is no wonder that most people recognize the name. Plato dedicated most of his life to the exploration of wisdom, and he came to the realization that wisdom can only be achieved through the loss of perception. Perception is anything that we can percieve through our bodily senses, so it follows that Plato placed a heavy emphasis on the “soul” as a form separate from the body.

    Plato 2

     

    In fact, Plato articulated his conception of wisdom in a number of his writings, including Euthyphro and The Apology. Wisdom (from Plato’s eyes) can be best seen like this:

     

    Plato

     

    All of the things we see and act upon are a mere product of our senses, which, according to Plato, is the lowest form of wisdom. This is because we cannot judge what we see or hear to be true at all because images, smells, and tastes are not something we can know to be true to ourselves. We have conveniently made them concrete in our minds so that we accept them as true, but in reality any “knowledge” acquired from such perceptions is not concrete at all.

    Taking a step up in the “ladder of knowledge” lies mathematical objects, or more simply, rationality. Plato asserts that if we think rationally about the things we experience and quantify them, we are getting closer to the true form of wisdom. Rather than merely taking our sensory perceptions for what they are, we can be more wise if we rationally think about the things we perceive.

    Both forms of knowledge or wisdom previously discussed are not true wisdom, at least in terms of Plato’s conception of wisdom. True wisdom can come only from intellect, in which we think, rationalize, and operate in terms of our mind only. In other words, we must completely ignore what we experience through our senses and focus only one what we know to be true irregardless of perception. To me (and to most others), this state of wisdom seems unattainable. Our sensory experiences shape who we are, what we do, and how we think. We cannot merely ignore our senses unless we have none.

    Interestingly, Plato goes into death as a release from the burden of bodily perception. He asserts that death can be one of two things. If death involves the loss of life from the body and the death of the soul along with it, then there can be no perception, as “all eternity would then seem to be no more than a single night” (The Apology 40e). In this form of death, we would have no perception because our death would be absolute and our senses would be excised.

    In the second possible form of death, the soul moves to another location upon the death of the body; however, this is just as causal of wisdom because this death perpetuates the soul’s ability to question reality and get closer and closer to true wisdom.

    Because death, in any sense of the word, results in the loss of perception, Plato believes that it will lead to wisdom. Only when we are separate from the illusions of the world can we reach wisdom. In this way, wisdom equals truth. If everything around us is a lie or a distraction from reality, than the only truth must lie within us in an abstract entity that we can only find ourselves.

    This is certainly a lot to synthesize and take in, but I have one question. If death is the only way to achieve wisdom and everyone lives to achieve wisdom, why does everyone cling to life so fervently?

    That’s all for now!

    Stay fly and goodbye!

    -Dan

    Category Passion | Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 3 Comments

Skip to toolbar