More Philosophy

If you haven't figured already it out, philosophy is of great interest to me, and so I certainly appreciate Jeff's responses to my excessively long posts. Like Jeff, I also found Sheldon Wolin's statement a lucid and plausible argument against Dewey's educational philosophy. I admit that I am no expert on Dewey, having only read a couple of works by him, and yet, the possibility of a "scientific/technological aristocracy" in modern society is one that seems to present a great challenge to the democratic aspirations of not just Dewey, but of probably the vast majority of those in public schools today. Technology is a tool, and I think that the general approach to it among Americans is one that seeks to understand it only insofar as understanding is needed in order to use this tool for the desired purposes. Beyond that, it is left to the "computer geeks" and the robotic club to delve further in order to enter the realm of "creator." But if this technological "elite" presents problems for the democrat (not the party, but the political system), a further question might be asked as to whether this is such a bad thing anyway. America has never claimed for herself a pure democracy, and the complicated system established at the end of the 18th century seems to have tried to guard against an excess in that extreme direction. Perhaps students just need to be aware that pure equality is a rather vague and abstract thing, for "elites" and "aristocracies" of all kinds inevitably arise in any society, no matter how much "leveling" is attempted or imposed.
Technology and democracy aside, Jeff's caution concerning truth claims is the thing that really peaked my interest, as it presented a definite challenge to my "alternative" educational vision that I briefly outlined in my previous post. As an historian, I am required to confront the problem of objectivity. The particular "bias" or "hobbyhorse" (as David Sanderlin termed it) of an historical account is a rather important thing to discern for the historical investigator, for no one is completely "objective," that is, completely free from a particular perspective, if only for the fact that we are all "subjects," each with our own mind and all the limits that that entails. Indeed, "objectivity" in its purest sense has very little meaning insofar as epistemology (the study of how we know) is concerned, for no perceiver is ever purely an object. But I do not think that this fact does much to hinder my claims concerning truth.
The issue concerning objectivity, subjectivity, and the perception of truth, in fact, strikes at the heart of an enduring philosophical debate. The modern conception is tied to Descartes' dualism that divorced the mind from reality and made subjective intuition the basis of reality ("I think, therefore, I am," etc.). But philosophers before him, such as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, grounded reality in "objective" being, that is, reality existing independent of man's perception of it. Thus metaphysics, not epistemology, with its subjective/objective dilemma, is the fundamental philosophy in this "Medieval/Classical" conception. Indeed, epistemology, and thus our knowledge of truth, becomes much more intelligible when it is grounded in the reality of being than when the reality of being is grounded in epistemology. Fundamentally, this is the difference between the realist, "common sense" philosophy and the constructionist, relativist one.
The view of the Medieval/Classical tradition can be labeled as "moderate realism." In this way, both objective reality and our perception of it are taken into account. We never perceive everything as it really is or with a "perfect" perspective. But this does not take away from the reality of things outside of ourselves, and thus of truth. The key thing here is that reality forms our perception, and not the other way around. In order to come to some level of certainty (not complete, mathematical certainty), we need to conform our minds to reality. We learn through our senses, through perceiving the same objects again and again, each time refining our conceptions to more closely match reality. Aquinas said, "Consult your senses." In this statement he presents a very straightforward answer to the cyclic confusion of modern thought: what do your reason, emotions, and very being all tend towards but interaction with things that are really there? Ground your thinking in that. I have less concern for attaining some sort of scientific certitude with which the modern mind seems so caught up than for seeking the truth as it can be ascertained through this world with a common sense perspective.
In a word, I would never want to be found on the road with any constructionist who truly lived his philosophy, for I could not count on him to respect the reality of my car.