You may recall how Dewey started as a Hegelian pilosopher and under influence of his education in physiology, psychology, Peirce and Darwinism developed what was in his opinion a new empiricism.
We discussed how Dewey at the end rejected idealism and came with an organic vision, viewing knowledge as arising from an active adaptation of the human organism to its environment.
It really is a wonderful experience to read Dewey himself, as if you hear his zeal to explain how this dualism is a misconception. In his book "Democracy and Education" (1916) you almost feel how motivated he is to offer his alternative.
What comes next may be hard but also a good excercise to practice you skills of relating philosophical texts with the historical references, which the author makes. I'll give you a somewhat extensive quote from chapter 25, 'Theories of Knowledge', the first paragraph.
With continuity Dewey refers to his own theory of knowledge and halfway the quote you'll read the reference to Descartes and rationalists and at the end the reference to Kant and Hegel and Transcendental Idealism. See if you recognizes this in the text.
QUOTE: 1. Continuity versus Dualism. A number of theories of knowing have been criticized in the previous pages. In spite of their differences from one another, they all agree in one fundamental respect which contrasts with the theory which has been positively advanced.
The latter assumes continuity; the former state or imply certain basic divisions, separations, or antitheses, technically called dualisms. The origin of these divisions we have found in the hard and fast walls which mark off social groups and classes within a group: like those between rich and poor, men and women, noble and baseborn, ruler and ruled.
These barriers mean absence of fluent and free intercourse. This absence is equivalent to the setting up of different types of life-experience, each with isolated subject matter, aim, and standard of values. Every such social condition must be
formulated in a dualistic philosophy, if philosophy is to be a sincere account of experience.
When it gets beyond dualism -- as many philosophies do in form -- it can only be by appeal to something higher than anything found in experience, by a flight to some transcendental realm. And in denying duality in name such theories restore it in fact, for they end in a division between things of this world as mere appearances and an inaccessible essence of reality. END QUOTE
I hope that it was worth reading this and that you really recognized all history in these words that we have explored up to now.
Dewey had a number of fundamental objections to idealism. First he charged that the idealists, in their preoccupation with knowledge and knowing, distorted the character of experience. idealists, he claimed, neglected the noncognitive and nonreflective experiences of doing, suffering and enjoying. This sets the context of all knowing and inquiry.
Man is primarily a being who acts, suffers and enjoys. Most of his life consists of experiences that are not primarily reflective. There is more to experience, Dewey believed, than is to be found in the writings of the idealists and , indeed, in the writings of most epistemologists.
A second objection Dewey had against idealism was that he saw it as a misconception to uphold the idea of a single unified whole in which everything is ultimately interrelated.
He insisted that life consists of a series of overlapping and interpenetrating experiences, situations, or contexts, each of which has its internal qualitative integrity.
A final and most interesting objection, when you put it in its historical context was this. The Hegelians and the nineteenth century idealists did have important insights into the organic nature of expereince, but they had overgeneralized them into a false cosmic projection. They used for instance a term like 'Weltgeist' (Worldmind) which transcends the individual mind.
Dewey discovered in the new developing human sciences, especially what he called the antropological-biological orientation, a more careful, detailed, scientific articulation of the organic character of experience. And here you see the great influence of Darwin and the developing science of psychology.
After all this criticism we'll focus in the next lecture at the alternative Dewey and pragmatism have to offer.
The Discussion
[13:33] Varick Vendetta: am I to understand that Dewey believed in the interconnectedness of small groups, but did not believe all things were connected as such?
[13:35] Herman Bergson: Was this a bit too difficult for you all..:-) ???
[13:35] Saddly Offcourse: not me
[13:35] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: Its ok.
[13:35] Reisekaufmann Zehetbauer: Descartes?
[13:35] Varick Vendetta: I'm fine, I just have that one question
[13:35] Gudrun Odriscoll: No,
[13:35] hope63 Shepherd: worthy taking some time to think:)
[13:35] Herman Bergson: Ok varick
[13:35] Osrum Sands: digesting
[13:35] Stanley Aviatik: my head hurts lol
[13:36] Gudrun Odriscoll: Is there somebody sitting on me or I am sitting on somebody, sorry
[13:36] Ze Novikov: so he believes in no overarching conceptual reality?
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: It seems that Dewey believed in 'Velcro'
[13:36] Ze Novikov: lol
[[13:36] Herman Bergson: No I dont think so Ze....
[13:36] Haplo Eberhart: if kristin kreuk is here she can sit on my lap .. lol
[13:36] Annabelle Laminsk: Velcro, the sticky stuff used on shoes?
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: The interconnectivity
[13:37] Herman Bergson: let's stick to the subject plz
[13:37] Gudrun Odriscoll: velcro is also dualistic plus sticky plus interdependent
[13:37] Gudrun Odriscoll: sorry herman
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: metaphorically speaking
[13:38] Annabelle Laminsk: Well that makes a bit more sense.
[13:38] herman Bergson frowns at gudrun
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: wow..gudrun
[13:38] Ze Novikov: then he also believes if each entity has an internal integrity there are diff between entities?
[13:39] Herman Bergson: what do you mean Ze?
[13:39] Herman Bergson: His metaphysics is pretty naturalistic
[13:39] Ze Novikov: if there is the notion of entities being linked
[13:39] Ze Novikov: then they have to be different?
[13:40] Ze Novikov: separate
[13:40] Herman Bergson: One thing he objected to was the atomism of the empiricist
[13:40] Ze Novikov: each distinct
[13:40] hope63 Shepherd: entities.. you talk about social groups?
[13:40] Ze Novikov: yes
[13:40] Sage Hartmann: Would Dewey's objections to dualism be applicable to phenomenology? That would seem to be a fairly continuous basis.
[13:40] Gudrun Odriscoll: what is atomism of the empiricist, herman
[13:40] Herman Bergson: entities is an abstract term...to what does it refer?
[13:41] Ze Novikov: social groups individuals
[13:41] Herman Bergson: This atomism you find in Russell and other British philosophers, but it started already with Locke and Hume
[13:41] Ze Novikov: what does he say is linked?
[13:41] Varick Vendetta: Did Dewey believe or not that all things are interconnected? I understand and agree with most everything else we talked about so far.
[13:41] Osrum Sands: Ze do you mean like in Sociology entities = Actors
[13:41] Herman Bergson: Experience was collecting sense data...atoms...
[13:42] Ze Novikov: exactley thx Os
[13:43] Herman Bergson: My opinion is that Dewey saw reality as a process like he sees experience also as a process not a gathering of seperate sense data
[13:43] Ze Novikov: the stream then ...
[13:43] Herman Bergson: so whatever you experience is within a context..
[13:43] Ze Novikov: ok
[13:43] Samuel Okelly: given his view of dualism, how would Dewey view the unity of opposites heraclitus spoke of?
[13:43] Gudrun Odriscoll: quite logical
[13:44] Herman Bergson: yes Ze...the sepearating is done by the intellect...
[13:44] Herman Bergson: Well Samuel..I have to consult Heraclites on that first before I can answer..:-)
[13:44] Sage Hartmann: (In case this got lost in the shuffle :) Would Dewey's objections to dualism be applicable to phenomenology? That would seem to be a fairly continuous basis.
[13:45] Annabelle Laminsk: What's a Hegelian philosopher?
[13:45] Herman Bergson: personally I would say Yes Sage...
[13:45] hope63 Shepherd: well.. isn'^t experience nothing else but adding, hence enabling more processes
[13:46] Herman Bergson: A hegelian philosopher is someone who claims that ontologically what really exists is MIND...
[13:46] Herman Bergson: to simplify somewhat
[13:46] Annabelle Laminsk blinks. "Oki."
[13:46] Varick Vendetta: my roommate thinks like that
[13:46] Gudrun Odriscoll: who is your roommate then
[13:47] Herman Bergson: dont mind Varick
[13:47] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:47] hope63 Shepherd: so any new expereience is in context with past experiences..
[13:47] Herman Bergson: Not exactly with past experience Hope
[13:48] Herman Bergson: when you observe an object it is in the middle of a context
[13:48] hope63 Shepherd: what you mean by not exactly?
[13:48] Herman Bergson: part of the context may be past experiences
[13:48] Herman Bergson: but also expactations regarding the future
[13:49] Gudrun Odriscoll: or crossreferencing with other(s) experiences
[13:49] Herman Bergson: yes Gudrun
[13:49] hope63 Shepherd: this part is based on the experiences of the mind.. a newborn won't have that..
[13:49] Haplo Eberhart: one should be aware of the past but not focus as to live in it.
[13:49] Sage Hartmann: Is he saying it is counter-productive to try to integrate our experiences into a common framework?
[13:49] Annabelle Laminsk raises hand.
[13:50] Varick Vendetta: Personal experience is what is concocted by the mind with input from the senses. And it seems Dewey believed in a reality seperate from our mind in which minds live and interact. would that be assuming too much?
[13:50] Herman Bergson: No Sage for then he would deny the meaning of science, I would say
[13:50] Herman Bergson: You are quit right Varick
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: Seems Dewey is more complex than we expected
[13:51] Varick Vendetta: cool, he agrees with me then. hehe
[13:51] Herman Bergson: I wouldnt say that Dewey was a materialist but he is close to it in his metaphysics
[13:52] Sage Hartmann: " it as a misconception to uphold the idea of a single unified whole in which everything is ultimately interrelated" - could you elaborate on this, if it doesn't mean its counter-productive to integrate our experiences into a common framework?
[13:53] Varick Vendetta: well he didn't seem to believe in a transcendental reality as far as I can tell. he may not have believed the world was determistic as most materialists do, but he does seem to be a materialist as far his view of reality. Unless I missed something.
[13:53] Herman Bergson: He is refering here to the idealist metaphysics Sage..
[13:53] Gudrun Odriscoll: that would also speak against Hawkins's unified theory, wouldn't it?
[13:53] Sage Hartmann: but it applies to any model as much as idealism, no?
[13:53] Stanley Aviatik: not his theory though
[13:54] Herman Bergson: First varick....
[13:54] Herman Bergson: In my understanding of Dewey I would say you are right Varick
[13:54] Herman Bergson: And Sage....
[13:55] Herman Bergson: I thinkkthere is a big difference between the present day conception of models and how to apply these and the idealist metaphysics. Their theory wasnt a model..it was an ontotlogy
[13:56] Sage Hartmann: ahh ok, so models are ok, but ontologies aren't.
[13:57] Herman Bergson: I would agree to that at first hand..:-)
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: i am sorry we have an engagement!!
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: have to leave
[13:57] Herman Bergson: Because the use of models can be easily pragmatically interpreted
[13:57] Qwark Allen: cya soon
[13:57] Stanley Aviatik: bye gemma
[13:57] Gudrun Odriscoll: bye Gemma
[13:57] Varick Vendetta: I have a question a bit off topic, I hope its ok. When did the determinist movement start, I could see it easily being argued for soon after newtons principia
[13:57] Qwark Allen: ty herman
[13:58] Qwark Allen: ;-D
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Gema dn Qwark
[13:58] Herman Bergson: Bye you two..:-)
[13:58] Varick Vendetta: bye you two
[13:58] Ze Novikov: bb guys
[13:58] Herman Bergson: The debate on determinism already started with the old Greek, Varick
[13:59] Varick Vendetta: true, but it didn't really seem to be taken seriously by many until the scientific era
[13:59] Sage Hartmann: I still don't see how that is fundamentally different than the approach of phenomenology, where experiences are structured both reductioninistically and holistically - how is this different than the continuous, penetratable/overlapping model he is proposing?
[14:00] Herman Bergson: I understand your question, Sage, an interesting one...
[14:01] Herman Bergson: But I must be honest....as a student of philosophy I wasnt that enchanted by phenomenology and Husserl
[14:01] Herman Bergson: My lectures here are a complete review of my study of thirty years ago..:-)
[14:01] Sage Hartmann: Ok then - but you seem to like dewey - so could you explain what appealed to you more then? =)
[14:02] Herman Bergson: So if you dont mind..I would like to answer your question when I have come to Husserl himself..
[14:02] Sage Hartmann: ohh
[14:02] Sage Hartmann: ok fair enough :)
[14:02] Annabelle Laminsk: Hello Rodeny. :D
[14:02] Rodney Handrick: Hi Annabelle
[14:02] Herman Bergson: maybe I will completely reevaluate phenomenology
[14:02] AristotleVon Doobie: Rodman
[14:02] Sage Hartmann: haha! =)
[14:02] Rodney Handrick: Hi Ari
[14:03] Herman Bergson: But dont have too high hopes on that Sage..:-)
[14:03] Sage Hartmann: lol ok ;)
[14:04] Herman Bergson: Well....next lecture we'll see what Dewey himself has to offer (and I will have a gance at phenomenology too)
[14:04] Herman Bergson: I am curious to know what I have missed
[14:05] Sage Hartmann: when is next class? =)
[14:05] Herman Bergson: So now that Rodney is seated I thank you for this good discussion....
[14:05] Herman Bergson: Thusrday Sage
[14:05] Herman Bergson: same time
[14:05] Sage Hartmann: darnit can't make it - will read the transcript i guess :/
[14:05] Marc Erdheim: thanks a lot herman.
[14:06] Sage Hartmann: thx for class herman - interesting as always :)
[14:06] Stanley Aviatik: yes, thanks again Herman
[14:06] Herman Bergson: I'll try to say something on your question that makes sense then...:-)
[14:06] Alarice Beaumont: oh thx herman
[14:06] Varick Vendetta: yes, thank you. I always enjoy coming here.
[14:06] Alarice Beaumont: i really was lost today!
[14:06] Samuel Okelly: interestesting stuff again herman :) many thanks :)
[14:06] Herman Bergson: You're welcome...
[14:06] Stanley Aviatik: bye all - see you in a minute Gudrun
[14:06] Sage Hartmann: =) i'll be sure to read the transcript then! =)
[14:06] Sage Hartmann: bye all -
[14:06] Annabelle Laminsk: Bye bye Sage :D
[14:07] Varick Vendetta: bye sage
[14:07] Rodney Handrick: That's how I've been keeping up
[14:07] Herman Bergson: Yeou missed the previous lecture laruce
[14:07] Herman Bergson: Bye Sage
[14:08] Gudrun Odriscoll: okay, guys, somehow I am outside above this lovely cherry tree. Thanks for interesting lecture, herman, lovely garden you have got
[14:08] Herman Bergson: thank you, Ze..:-)
[14:08] Herman Bergson: We missed Cailleach today
[14:09] Ze Novikov: thank you Herman for the class
[14:09] Rodney Handrick: Really...
[14:09] Alarice Beaumont: bye everybody
[14:09] Rodney Handrick: I thought she was here...
[14:09] Herman Bergson: my pleasure and joy Ze
[14:09] Rodney Handrick: Bye Alarice
[14:09] Tiara Calvert: Thank you again, have a great day/evening all.
[14:09] Samuel Okelly: tc every1 and thanks again herman :)
[14:10] Rodney Handrick: Bye Tiara
[14:10] Herman Bergson: You to Samuel
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment