*John Dewey* 1:02 Dewey Decimal System, Seminar Reform 5:21 1st Pragmatist Trained in Traditional Philosophical Literature 7:07 Historicizing why this thought system came into existance 24:04 Post-Traditional Philosophy 42:42 Unending Faith in Change and Growth 43:40 Self is Created Dynamic, Strong, Vital Development of Rich Character Every person can become something within and due to its culture 44:28 Formed/Molded/Grown By Socio-Culture *Pragmatism* 1:37 Charles Sanders Pierce ua-cam.com/video/6KeiPitz5QM/v-deo.html 2:03 “What do you expect to experience if your statement is true?” 2:56 If there is no practical difference, they are meaningless distinctions 3:18 True if it Predicts Truth/Applies Truth 4:14 William James 6:12 Pragmatism rejects Eternal Truth, offers no Eternal Truth. *Historicism of Philosophy* 9:01 Ritualized Doctrine New Natural Science conflicts The Environment 11:50 Aristocrat Life, Laborer Life, Slave Life *Knowledge* 10:52 Spectator View 15:08 Subject[Knowledge]Object 16:14 Theory [Truths, Unchanging, Abstract] vs Practice [Results/Changing, Material] *Philosophy vs Warfare* 18:47 Being, Capital B 22:05 Fixed Varieties *Empiricist Naturalism* 24:33 Empiricism + Naturalism 26:18 Thought 💭 a stimulus to Doubt ❓ 27:43 Culture *Thought Parses The World* 🌍 🌎 28:27 Epistemological Idealism • 29:03 🧭 *Man invents direction, “added into the world”, and maintains it as a useful tool.* • Multiple Perspectives 32:29 “It’s True when It Works, [Produces Purpose-Fulfilling, Doubt-Solving] *Warranted Discernability* 33:08 Effectiveness is the goal 🥅, Best Ideas are True (for now, might change later) 34:10 Clearing, Guiding, To Our End 35:02 Math is Man’s Tool 🧮 🎻 “The Project is Never Closed” *Implications on Morals and Political Philosophy* 36:20 There is No (“One”)☝🏻 37:27 Trained, Habits, Impulses 37:50 Wide Spread Uniformity, not Truth; [Multiple Cultures, Multiple Truths, based on usefulness to those peoples.] • hand shakes 🤝 38:32 Old Customs meet Changing Circumstances, Tension 💥, Revolution • French Revolution, Reign of Terror 38:36 Forming New Habits 40:12 No Fixed Ends. Cultural Ends, Inculcated Ends. 41:04 *Ethical Pluralism* • Multiplicity of Values, Virtues • They Arise from Life, across gaps 41:39 Individual Problems, Democratic Solutions • What works for some is good • If it doesn’t work for others, we need another solution *1 Minute Closing* 45:06 The Natural World is study worthy 46:08 Traditional Philosophy is Impractical 46:30 Socially Constructed Life, Creating Self
Usefulness would probably say things like • sometimes necessary • Multiplicity • Both • If some benefit from treatment, good; if some do not, find another treatment [The Trolley Problem but like, acting rationally, respecting human life]
Melvil Dewey, a 19th C librarian, invented the "Dewey Decimal system" mot John Dewey. Dewey did not start seminars in the US, though he did study in Germany. Josiah Royce liked German style seminars. Dewey is famous for pioneering his own unique pedagogy which is known as "progressive education," though he did not approve of the manner in which most who used that label applied his theories. He founded "The Laboratory School" in the 1890s for young children. It revolutionized "child centered learning which emphasized identifying the students interests and passions, and using them to assign individualized "hands on" assignments rather than learning by books alone and relying on memorization and written tests. He emphasized the need for physical activity in the school day which led to "recess" periods. He did not focus on "logical consequences" ( a concept from propositoinal logic) but instead emphasized "practical consequences" of various types of interactions (as opposed to logical consequences of premises). He disliked traditional logic and created his own in "Essays on Experimental Logic" which Gutenberg has up for free here: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40794. I like Sugrue, I really do, and some of Staloff's philosophylectures are pretty good as well. But his field is really American History, and here he gets some immportant things wrong. I would not rely on this for an intro to Dewey. Lawrence Cahoone, another Great Courses prof., has 1 or 2 lecutes on Dewey in his course on Modern Philosophy from Descartes to Derrida. That's far more reliable. The short chapter on Dewey in Crnelis De Waal's little intro book called "On Pragmatism" is quite reliable as well.
If this lecture on Dewey and the one on Marcus Aurelius were the only ones presented, the entire channel would be worth it. Both outline ideas on which you can base a fruitful life. Bravo!
This is a fantastic lecture/summary of one of Dewey's better books. At 11:50 btw, it's also worth pointing out that Dewey himself was born into a working class background, so even his ideas were an outgrowth of his context (which no doubt he would agree with). It's most evident in his epistemology. It's pretty interesting to me, too, that this split between the Aristocrat types and the "work-with-hands" types still exists in modern day philosophy. All of those who defend the idea that philosophy is good for it's own sake, or should be about the search for "truth for its own sake," irregardless of usefulness or practical applicability, are showing their class upbringing. It's the sort of thing that someone who has never swung a pickaxe or shoveled dirt in their life would believe -- it's obvious! That sociological observation explains why "usefulness" tends to be denigrated by modern academic philosophers, and given that they tend to disproportionately hail from middle and upper-middle-class backgrounds, this is unlikely to change anytime soon, because 99% dont share the workin' man's prior.
When someone begins with such an easily avoidable mistake-attributing the decimal system to the wrong Dewey-and when the first person he quotes on Dewey is Bertie Russell-known for willfully mischaracterizing Dewey for decades-I listen with some measure of skepticism. But I’ll stick around. See if I can be delightfully surprised. No high hopes though!
I don't know the autor. What you thought of this lecture overall? Some of the concepts Staloff shows here where presented to me in the university as if they where from W. James, but idk who's in the wrong here.
I thought the same thing. After reading "To Kill A Mockingbird" I got curious and looked if John Dewey came up with it, nope Melvil Dewey. No relation.
Bravo, Dewey! Here's a man who gets it! (Isn't life hard enough without ivory-tower "philosophers" arguing about inane topics or terms instead of helping people--students and laymen alike--cope with the age-old problems of life and offering them SOME hope in the process??) It's always been about the getting of wisdom; the rest is walking one's wits down 5th Avenue so all can gawk--in short, so much is about ego!
26:53 Could the notion of the intellectual form of thought being that which changes the environment be related to Lucifer's expulsion from Heaven? Or perhaps the myth of Prometheus?
About Leibniz: it is God who choses for us the best possible world. The alternative worlds would be even worst. So, this is the best possible world for us. Not such a silly idea. Maybe Leibniz is right. Things go as good as possible.
I see his point, it's a famous saying, but he is no different from Pangalos. Voltaire absolutely destroyed Leibniz for this comment. He doesn't know other worlds, yet he claims this is the best because we exist in it. It's strictly a dogmatic optimism that is nowhere to be found in his own writings.
A beast in philology matters. Plato rejected art, thinking is related to noesis in greek, and to dianoia. Thinking in Indo-European tradition is comunicating thinking, thinking in Greece is both perceiving clearly what appears invariant to changes. whats perceived clearly, whats intelligible, and communicating. Noesis and Dianoia. Just by rejecting Greek tradition and German tradition, by adulterating its traits, you don't get refine, or surpass the ancestors. Greeks had descriptive ethic, normative ethic, and problem solving ethics. For example skepticism is a talent. problem-solving,, the talent to suspend judgement. Its a problem solving philosophy. I would object all but admire Dewey as a pioneer of his times and practical thinker. Socrates solves his condemnation, dying in the heart of democracy, the agora. Almost insulting Greece, Germans, French, and American center culture. That nevertheless I admire in its best features, and love friends and people. Special problem solvers oriented. Institutional ethics in america i dont what it is, and the world copies america
Aren't those new logics that were developed recently just improved, higher-resolution representations of the same underlying mathematical reality, and not entirely new truths? Calling them "new truths" doesn't really make sense.
He is, in the philosophical sense, overriding, thus misunderstanding Descartes. The ghost is our psyche, and the machine is our body. Therefore, mind-body dualism is far from laughable, considering philosophy became psychology ( modern paradigm shift). Ironically, most who use the term critical thinking never think critically about themselves or solve personal issues. They criticize others. as if they are superior.On being, Metaphysics proper means after or from nature;/physics, we are made of that, not separate from it.
This is a complete tangent, and no offense to Dr. Staloff, but people give Leibniz way too much flack for the “best of all possible worlds” idea. It follows, I think, pretty reasonably from the idea of an ultimately good creator-God. Leibniz’ major work in his own lifetime was the book, Theodicy, where he exhaustively examines the problem of evil and the challenge that evil poses to his own “best of all possible worlds” formulation. People are so casually dismissive of it that I really think they don’t understand what he was driving at, or the scale on which he was talking, or the rigor of his examination of the point and its metaphysical and ethical implications given the sheer magnitude of evil and suffering we encounter on a daily basis. Dude was a prodigy raised by a single mom; he was not unfamiliar with suffering.
Made up contradiction - first it is selfreference, second metaphysics doeas not pertain to physics from definition. Third thats sophistic argument. So actually the contradiction is not inherent but added by you. And the whole created problem still exist only from metaphysics standpoint. In reallity - ( thats Fith actually ) - pragmatism recognizes methaphysical realms as creation of poeple minds which are usefull for them - so no contradiction present.
@@questionmark7045 Then what about this, one of the best critiques of pragmatists(I hate them), is that they do not know if there will be a breakthrough in a field they already deemed not practical. They can scrutinize ontology and metaphysics all they want, but they can at least never say it will never bear fruit because they don't know that. It has the potential to be useful to us in some way, and we may never get the chance if we let the pragmatists decide what is useful here and now.
@@post-structuralist You are merely revealing your own theological bias here. Onoy religious people clinging to metaphysical dairy tales hates pragmatism. The same way they hate science because it reveals a cold, stark, evolving, uncaring universe. If I was to go with any metaphysic it would be Taoism because of this very fact. That they accept the reality of nature and work with it, instead of cloning to fairy stories that our universe is in some way personal and we have some special purpose in it.
I have proposition - when You read certain philosophie do not try to make case for or against it - try to find answers to following questins - what problems address this philosophy - are this problem new or old, what is the solution proposed, how one understand this solution, what is expected to happen after using such method, does this method cuts some important questions out. What are the limitations of such method, how much this method is different from others.
@@questionmark7045 Did you not understand that critiquing pragmatism is finding the problems with it? I feel like you only say this because you cannot refute what I say.
*John Dewey*
1:02 Dewey Decimal System, Seminar Reform
5:21 1st Pragmatist Trained in Traditional Philosophical Literature
7:07 Historicizing why this thought system came into existance
24:04 Post-Traditional Philosophy
42:42 Unending Faith in Change and Growth
43:40 Self is Created
Dynamic, Strong, Vital
Development of Rich Character
Every person can become something within and due to its culture
44:28 Formed/Molded/Grown By Socio-Culture
*Pragmatism*
1:37 Charles Sanders Pierce ua-cam.com/video/6KeiPitz5QM/v-deo.html
2:03 “What do you expect to experience if your statement is true?” 2:56 If there is no practical difference, they are meaningless distinctions
3:18 True if it Predicts Truth/Applies Truth
4:14 William James
6:12 Pragmatism rejects Eternal Truth, offers no Eternal Truth.
*Historicism of Philosophy*
9:01 Ritualized Doctrine
New Natural Science conflicts The Environment
11:50 Aristocrat Life, Laborer Life, Slave Life
*Knowledge*
10:52 Spectator View
15:08 Subject[Knowledge]Object
16:14 Theory [Truths, Unchanging, Abstract] vs Practice [Results/Changing, Material]
*Philosophy vs Warfare*
18:47 Being, Capital B
22:05 Fixed Varieties
*Empiricist Naturalism*
24:33 Empiricism + Naturalism
26:18 Thought 💭 a stimulus to Doubt ❓
27:43 Culture
*Thought Parses The World* 🌍 🌎
28:27 Epistemological Idealism
• 29:03 🧭 *Man invents direction, “added into the world”, and maintains it as a useful tool.*
• Multiple Perspectives
32:29 “It’s True when It Works, [Produces Purpose-Fulfilling, Doubt-Solving]
*Warranted Discernability*
33:08 Effectiveness is the goal 🥅, Best Ideas are True (for now, might change later)
34:10 Clearing, Guiding, To Our End
35:02 Math is Man’s Tool 🧮 🎻
“The Project is Never Closed”
*Implications on Morals and Political Philosophy*
36:20 There is No (“One”)☝🏻
37:27 Trained, Habits, Impulses
37:50 Wide Spread Uniformity, not Truth; [Multiple Cultures, Multiple Truths, based on usefulness to those peoples.]
• hand shakes 🤝
38:32 Old Customs meet Changing Circumstances, Tension 💥, Revolution
• French Revolution, Reign of Terror
38:36 Forming New Habits
40:12 No Fixed Ends. Cultural Ends, Inculcated Ends.
41:04 *Ethical Pluralism*
• Multiplicity of Values, Virtues
• They Arise from Life, across gaps
41:39 Individual Problems, Democratic Solutions
• What works for some is good
• If it doesn’t work for others, we need another solution
*1 Minute Closing*
45:06 The Natural World is study worthy
46:08 Traditional Philosophy is Impractical
46:30 Socially Constructed Life, Creating Self
Usefulness would probably say things like
• sometimes necessary
• Multiplicity • Both
• If some benefit from treatment, good; if some do not, find another treatment
[The Trolley Problem but like, acting rationally, respecting human life]
Thank you! Incredible and marvelous work you’ve done. Thank you very much.
Damn. You the link to a degree?
Melvil Dewey, a 19th C librarian, invented the "Dewey Decimal system" mot John Dewey. Dewey did not start seminars in the US, though he did study in Germany. Josiah Royce liked German style seminars. Dewey is famous for pioneering his own unique pedagogy which is known as "progressive education," though he did not approve of the manner in which most who used that label applied his theories. He founded "The Laboratory School" in the 1890s for young children. It revolutionized "child centered learning which emphasized identifying the students interests and passions, and using them to assign individualized "hands on" assignments rather than learning by books alone and relying on memorization and written tests. He emphasized the need for physical activity in the school day which led to "recess" periods. He did not focus on "logical consequences" ( a concept from propositoinal logic) but instead emphasized "practical consequences" of various types of interactions (as opposed to logical consequences of premises). He disliked traditional logic and created his own in "Essays on Experimental Logic" which Gutenberg has up for free here: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40794. I like Sugrue, I really do, and some of Staloff's philosophylectures are pretty good as well. But his field is really American History, and here he gets some immportant things wrong. I would not rely on this for an intro to Dewey. Lawrence Cahoone, another Great Courses prof., has 1 or 2 lecutes on Dewey in his course on Modern Philosophy from Descartes to Derrida. That's far more reliable. The short chapter on Dewey in Crnelis De Waal's little intro book called "On Pragmatism" is quite reliable as well.
If this lecture on Dewey and the one on Marcus Aurelius were the only ones presented, the entire channel would be worth it. Both outline ideas on which you can base a fruitful life. Bravo!
Thanks!
This is a fantastic lecture/summary of one of Dewey's better books. At 11:50 btw, it's also worth pointing out that Dewey himself was born into a working class background, so even his ideas were an outgrowth of his context (which no doubt he would agree with). It's most evident in his epistemology.
It's pretty interesting to me, too, that this split between the Aristocrat types and the "work-with-hands" types still exists in modern day philosophy. All of those who defend the idea that philosophy is good for it's own sake, or should be about the search for "truth for its own sake," irregardless of usefulness or practical applicability, are showing their class upbringing. It's the sort of thing that someone who has never swung a pickaxe or shoveled dirt in their life would believe -- it's obvious! That sociological observation explains why "usefulness" tends to be denigrated by modern academic philosophers, and given that they tend to disproportionately hail from middle and upper-middle-class backgrounds, this is unlikely to change anytime soon, because 99% dont share the workin' man's prior.
When someone begins with such an easily avoidable mistake-attributing the decimal system to the wrong Dewey-and when the first person he quotes on Dewey is Bertie Russell-known for willfully mischaracterizing Dewey for decades-I listen with some measure of skepticism. But I’ll stick around. See if I can be delightfully surprised. No high hopes though!
Damn - that AND the 'nomenclature' mispronunciation , I'll chock up to I.D.K.? Youth? I'd have hated to have to pay an "ivy league tuition" for that.
Well, not really just in retrospect as someone with the UA-cam
How did the lecture measure out? I assume you saw the whole thing. I am no expert on Dewey so I have to defer to you.
I don't know the autor. What you thought of this lecture overall? Some of the concepts Staloff shows here where presented to me in the university as if they where from W. James, but idk who's in the wrong here.
Fantastic presentation.
Dewey Decimal System: Melville Dewey!
^He's Right
I thought the same thing. After reading "To Kill A Mockingbird" I got curious and looked if John Dewey came up with it, nope Melvil Dewey. No relation.
Yeah, idk why he said that lol
Bravo, Dewey! Here's a man who gets it! (Isn't life hard enough without ivory-tower "philosophers" arguing about inane topics or terms instead of helping people--students and laymen alike--cope with the age-old problems of life and offering them SOME hope in the process??) It's always been about the getting of wisdom; the rest is walking one's wits down 5th Avenue so all can gawk--in short, so much is about ego!
Did Dr. Staloff or Dr. Sugrue ever cover Rorty? Would love to see that lecture!
Staloff did once. I don't think Sugrue likes Rortry at all but Stalloff and Rortyy were buddies.
26:53
Could the notion of the intellectual form of thought being that which changes the environment be related to Lucifer's expulsion from Heaven? Or perhaps the myth of Prometheus?
About Leibniz: it is God who choses for us the best possible world. The alternative worlds would be even worst. So, this is the best possible world for us. Not such a silly idea. Maybe Leibniz is right. Things go as good as possible.
I see his point, it's a famous saying, but he is no different from Pangalos.
Voltaire absolutely destroyed Leibniz for this comment. He doesn't know other worlds, yet he claims this is the best because we exist in it. It's strictly a dogmatic optimism that is nowhere to be found in his own writings.
I've only ever heard 'nomenclature' accentuated on the 3rd syllable . I got to say,I was a little taken aback by that .
Or accented?
❤
A beast in philology matters. Plato rejected art, thinking is related to noesis in greek, and to dianoia. Thinking in Indo-European tradition is comunicating thinking, thinking in Greece is both perceiving clearly what appears invariant to changes. whats perceived clearly, whats intelligible, and communicating. Noesis and Dianoia. Just by rejecting Greek tradition and German tradition, by adulterating its traits, you don't get refine, or surpass the ancestors. Greeks had descriptive ethic, normative ethic, and problem solving ethics. For example skepticism is a talent. problem-solving,, the talent to suspend judgement. Its a problem solving philosophy. I would object all but admire Dewey as a pioneer of his times and practical thinker. Socrates solves his condemnation, dying in the heart of democracy, the agora. Almost insulting Greece, Germans, French, and American center culture. That nevertheless I admire in its best features, and love friends and people. Special problem solvers oriented. Institutional ethics in america i dont what it is, and the world copies america
Aren't those new logics that were developed recently just improved, higher-resolution representations of the same underlying mathematical reality, and not entirely new truths? Calling them "new truths" doesn't really make sense.
He is, in the philosophical sense, overriding, thus misunderstanding Descartes. The ghost is our psyche, and the machine is our body. Therefore, mind-body dualism is far from laughable, considering philosophy became psychology ( modern paradigm shift). Ironically, most who use the term critical thinking never think critically about themselves or solve personal issues. They criticize others. as if they are superior.On being, Metaphysics proper means after or from nature;/physics, we are made of that, not separate from it.
Wasn’t another Dewey the inventor of the decimal system?
This is a complete tangent, and no offense to Dr. Staloff, but people give Leibniz way too much flack for the “best of all possible worlds” idea. It follows, I think, pretty reasonably from the idea of an ultimately good creator-God. Leibniz’ major work in his own lifetime was the book, Theodicy, where he exhaustively examines the problem of evil and the challenge that evil poses to his own “best of all possible worlds” formulation. People are so casually dismissive of it that I really think they don’t understand what he was driving at, or the scale on which he was talking, or the rigor of his examination of the point and its metaphysical and ethical implications given the sheer magnitude of evil and suffering we encounter on a daily basis. Dude was a prodigy raised by a single mom; he was not unfamiliar with suffering.
then enters the great contradiction of pragmatism: when cultures deem metaphysical realms a useful tool
Made up contradiction - first it is selfreference, second metaphysics doeas not pertain to physics from definition. Third thats sophistic argument. So actually the contradiction is not inherent but added by you. And the whole created problem still exist only from metaphysics standpoint. In reallity - ( thats Fith actually ) - pragmatism recognizes methaphysical realms as creation of poeple minds which are usefull for them - so no contradiction present.
@@questionmark7045 Then what about this, one of the best critiques of pragmatists(I hate them), is that they do not know if there will be a breakthrough in a field they already deemed not practical. They can scrutinize ontology and metaphysics all they want, but they can at least never say it will never bear fruit because they don't know that. It has the potential to be useful to us in some way, and we may never get the chance if we let the pragmatists decide what is useful here and now.
@@post-structuralist You are merely revealing your own theological bias here. Onoy religious people clinging to metaphysical dairy tales hates pragmatism. The same way they hate science because it reveals a cold, stark, evolving, uncaring universe. If I was to go with any metaphysic it would be Taoism because of this very fact. That they accept the reality of nature and work with it, instead of cloning to fairy stories that our universe is in some way personal and we have some special purpose in it.
I have proposition - when You read certain philosophie do not try to make case for or against it - try to find answers to following questins - what problems address this philosophy - are this problem new or old, what is the solution proposed, how one understand this solution, what is expected to happen after using such method, does this method cuts some important questions out. What are the limitations of such method, how much this method is different from others.
@@questionmark7045 Did you not understand that critiquing pragmatism is finding the problems with it? I feel like you only say this because you cannot refute what I say.
Horrible misrepresentations of Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, and Leibniz.
انت راجل تمام ومية المية المية
Moore Amy Lee Eric Hall Barbara
Harris Elizabeth Lewis Paul Lee Steven
Halfway through: For a guy doing a lecture on John Dewey, he hasn't done a lot of talking about John Dewey.
This guy could not look more like a stereotypical philosophy professor lmao
He's a historian or something. He really doesn't look like a philosopher, not even stereotypically.
I didn't recognize him without the hair and clean face xD
White Mark Lopez Maria Lee Amy
Is Stalloff on cocaine in the thumb?
This is a boring lecture. I would sleep...