Aug 15 2012: That is an excellent point! I am not at all a fan of Ayn Rand.
However, she is not even considered literature much less philosophy. Would it not be beneficial for students to read the Western Canon to come to that conclusion themselves?
Aug 13 2012: Thank you for engaging in the debate. We may not be able to teach someone to read with the eyes if he is blind, but we can teach him to read with his hands--braille. The point being, rarely is someone unable to learn. Instead, we adjust to their abilities and strengths.
I know in a debate it is never good to get personal, but I read philosophy at a young age--around nine or ten. I know I am a better person because of it. When I taught Catechism, I taught Socratic principles and the children understood. I assume they are better for it.
I am always wary of the study of neuroscience. It is too deafening to know love is something like sound which develops and deteriorates with age.
Aug 13 2012: Thanks for your reply, I do agree if it was taught like a memorization of names and dates it would be pointless. However, I know English Literature Courses do get a bit philosophical--especially when discussing social issues.
I wonder, why not teach Socrates or Aristotle to better development reflection and good judgement?
Aug 13 2012: That's a good point. I am not being facetious when I write not enough students study areas such as metaphysics, which is viewed by many as a predecessor to physics instead of a supplement to it. I think most about metaphysics because of the rigor. Kant and Hegel are viewed as outdated thinkers and thoughts.
Aug 10 2012: Thank you, I prefer this answer. I wonder about other issues with television. However, this is a great answer. Thank you for taking my question seriously.
Aug 10 2012: This is a great question and I do not want to divert the question, but I think this question is also related to the education gap. Someone asked about making Computer Science a required course. I think this is a good option; many students can relate to computers and would like to know how they work. Consequently, students would have more drive to work up the math and physics necessary to understand it.
I do not think that science is any less technical than it ever was. It may be more specialized than before but that is a good thing. It is better to be specific and work with others than be a one man jack of all trades. The point being, we need to get people to a condition where the basics are understood to have the will power to understand more.
For me, the first step would be to teach Computer Science to all students at different level, exposing children to a math and science they understand which can be later use to independently verify research.
Aug 10 2012: I agree with this but can you or someone else elaborate? I know these shows reflect social attitudes, but do they also contribute to them? Especially for those most impressionable.
I am not concerned with freedom of speech; I'm not arguing for against their showing. Instead, I am arguing whether it is wise to watch in the first place. Do they create fantastic representations regarding life? Do they force people to live up to a standard that is just not healthy?
What are the positive and negative effects of these shows?
Aug 9 2012: I imagine you are thinking about Game Theory--the mathematics of strategic actions.
I think of something like chess in this regard. Has chess improved the world since its inception? I cannot really write yes. Sure, it provides better understanding in strategic actions but it does not replace human relationships.
TEDCred score: +1.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: What are the arguments for and against philosophy in high school?
However, she is not even considered literature much less philosophy. Would it not be beneficial for students to read the Western Canon to come to that conclusion themselves?
A reply on Conversation: What are the arguments for and against philosophy in high school?
A reply on Conversation: What are the arguments for and against philosophy in high school?
I know in a debate it is never good to get personal, but I read philosophy at a young age--around nine or ten. I know I am a better person because of it. When I taught Catechism, I taught Socratic principles and the children understood. I assume they are better for it.
I am always wary of the study of neuroscience. It is too deafening to know love is something like sound which develops and deteriorates with age.
A reply on Conversation: What are the arguments for and against philosophy in high school?
I wonder, why not teach Socrates or Aristotle to better development reflection and good judgement?
A reply on Conversation: What are the arguments for and against philosophy in high school?
A reply on Conversation: What are the negative and positive effects of shows such as Two and Half Men and Friends?
A comment on Conversation: When confronted with new ideas like the ones presented by Mina Bissell, how do we change our views in today's scientific establishment?
I do not think that science is any less technical than it ever was. It may be more specialized than before but that is a good thing. It is better to be specific and work with others than be a one man jack of all trades. The point being, we need to get people to a condition where the basics are understood to have the will power to understand more.
For me, the first step would be to teach Computer Science to all students at different level, exposing children to a math and science they understand which can be later use to independently verify research.
A reply on Conversation: What are the negative and positive effects of shows such as Two and Half Men and Friends?
I am not concerned with freedom of speech; I'm not arguing for against their showing. Instead, I am arguing whether it is wise to watch in the first place. Do they create fantastic representations regarding life? Do they force people to live up to a standard that is just not healthy?
What are the positive and negative effects of these shows?
A reply on Conversation: Do games really make a better world?
A comment on Conversation: Do games really make a better world?
I think of something like chess in this regard. Has chess improved the world since its inception? I cannot really write yes. Sure, it provides better understanding in strategic actions but it does not replace human relationships.