Technocratic_Utilitarian

Some fool who burns his house down is a wee bit different conceptually from someone who leaves living beings outside to freeze to death because of his incompetence. In one respect, he is only harming himself. In the other, he is harming other sentient creatures. It's a very bad analogy. Non-sentient property is different from sentient property. You have a duty to care for living creatures you purchase. It really doesn't matter whether or not they are volitional or in possion of "rational" attributes. He shouldn't even be an animal owner. He's not responsible or intelligent enough. Quite often, killing something that can feel is worse ethically stand accidentally destroying your own property. Dogs, like many other animals, have interests of avoiding pain and death. Freezing to death by someone's ineptitude is contrary to that. A house has no interests. It's not even possible because it lacks fundamental sentience as a prerequisite. You ought to value sentient beings more than inanimate objects. You can always buy another identical inanimate item.

Very true. I always favoured the blend of the two, but in my experiences, the latter lab has always gotten short-changed. It's also harder, I think, to do with humantities, since they are not as hard-core into the scientific method as the actual sciences. I think discussions should be incorporated into the lectures, instead of people just sitting in the front of the class and the kids writing. It's too passive. I like question. I am not against having kids solve problems together, but one has to be careful with group work, since I have seen the slackers leech onto the few good kids, but I have ways of dealing with that. The teacher has to pay attention to what goes on. Like you said, though, you have to have the information to do the lab. I agree, I just don't like the current system of people sitting, writing, and then leaving quietly.

That's a fascinating job you have. You are very lucky. I am also studying to teach History, but I still need to hone my skills. I think it is important for all students to have a general factual basis, because without facts, one really can't argue much. However, I also think it is important for students to think conceptually, as you do. I think people should try to link the past to the present--make history useful, since learns are typically active in their construction of knowledge. Passively pouring information over people is banal. Making history relevant or fun is a great way to learn, but people aslo have to take personal initiative to learn it, for it can be droll at times. I buy up all the texts I can so I can have a foundation of knowledge at my fingertips if I were to need any facts. Long ago, I decided that I am against forcing students to memorize every inane detail. I hated that when I was in school, and I learned that you just forget said information over time. What did you do in college? What was your thesis? Any tips/suggestions? Over time, I find that what I learn becomes a blur and is pushed out by other information. Have you ever had that problem?

I do see what you mean here, but I would like to point out that that particular mentality goes beyond Freund. Piaget is also a cognitive constructivist. Now, I do disagree with some of the elements of it as well as social constructivism, but they do have some points that are good and relevant, being applied successfully. As a teacher you have to work with the theory and combine them in practical application. For example, I believe that the regions or classifications used as levels are a bit too rigid. This has been confirmed by other psychologists, but the entire conception is not without merit. Children do develop socioemtionally and cognitiviely in general developmental patterns as well as uniquely, but I think the primary problem is the endeavour to attach a one-size-fits-all mentality to reality. When you are speaking of the abstract quantification ability, I take it you are refering to concrete vs formal operations or preoperational? I don't believe, like I said above, that these characteristis come in neat, uniform packages all the time and that those characteristics are present to equal extents in all children. I agree with you that they are not totally absent untill late teens. I know of other theories that don't claim that. I don't really think Freud is all that credible. For example, the modern concept of early/mid childhood takes some elements from Piaget's concrete/formal levels of operational thought. A lot of things are actually useful in this general theory as well as the theory of Vygotsky (I employ the latter more, since I think it's a bit more useful). This can stretch anywhere from 6-13 years old. The cognitive development of the child is extensive in these periods, however, very young children in the stage of infancy do have a problem with operations. Other children in early childhoold and middlechildhood can have some problem, but training can alleviate some of those woes. Language develops early on, and you are right in that it is a form of abstract though, so I don't really know why anyone would say one isn't capable of such thought untill late teen years. From the Piagetian and modern view, that comes as early as the preoperational general stage. I do believe in taking somewhat of a constructivist approach in teaching, but not entirely. I also believe in pragmatism. Most modern theories of educational psychology do not hold that children in the early years cannot reason or use logic to think abstractly, but not all children can at all times and, like I said above, they gain these abilities at various intervals. Some people never really actualize the potential of the Formal Operational stage. There are also different levels of abstract thought. Early children from 2-5 have a hard time with formal operations and concrete operations, but this steadily improves with training and biological development. Many very young children in the preoperational level 3-4 tend to exhibit problems with transitivity, seriation, and conservation, but again, this can be somewhat alleviated as a problem by extra training, but I don't believe in shoving something down someone's throat. I think education should be developmental. I have a hard time getting kids to learn highly absract concepts in elementary school, so I start off with more concrete things and move into gradually difficult abstracts. Personally, I find the conceopts of scaffolding and the ZPD useful as teaching tools. I am quite disappointed with the methods of rote memorizationused in both elementary and highschool. Memorization can have a place, since you do need facts, but I think far too much emphasis is placed upon it and standardizied testing. It does not work very well and is also very poor for little children (even adults, when one thinks about it). Children and adolescents are generally active learners, and they need to get involved and teaching ought to be developmental. I do agree with you here. They have abandoned very successful methods that I personally think are better. Phonics can be quite useful, but not for all kids. I don't think it should be abandoned, however. The educational theory I have learned so far seems to provide a basic framework for teaching. Some works better than others on certain children. There really is no universal method that works well. But as I said, my gereral education philsophy is a mix of progressivism and social pragmatism. My teaching philosophy is fairly utilitarian. I do what is useful. I wish there were more of an emphasis on classes like logic, science. I find it horrid that children must take 4 years of English, 2 of which are literature, but they only need 3 of math and science. The latter are far more important.

What do you mean you have found it utile as a teaching method? Objectivist epistemology just seems like the modern scientific method. It's not like it is unique to Objectivism. It developed independently of it. Objectivism seems to affirm said method and system of epistemology based on reason and empiricism combined. Against what other methods are you weighing it? I didn't know of any way to teach other than one that focuses on logic, reasoning, analysis, and facts dealing with reality.

Who?

Why hello there. I have not read many books by Rand, but I have read a few. Personally, I think Anthem was well done, but I cannot say I enjoy much of her writing style. I find it a bit dry and preachy, but to each his own. I would recomend Anthem to anyone though; like I said, that one was entertaining. Could have been longer, but meh. What can one do with a novella?

I drive a 98 Jeep Wrangler. I like my little vehicle. It gets me where I need to go and looks nice. Although, it has some problems handling the wind, but that is understandable due to the lack of aerodynamcis.

Now, I made it a point to read the Wiki, but can you explain the purpouse in a bit more detail just to clarify? It seemed a smidge vague. Does everyone have to agree with a particular conclusion, or can be there a pluralism of ideas, so long as nothing is offensive? Or is the is the situation such that everyone must agree and come from the same point of view?

Hello. Just introducing myself. Never been to this forum, so I figured I would try it out. If I need to work the BBcode, I will try it here and get the kinks out. Obviously, I am not an Objectivist, but I didn't see that I had to be in the rules. I hope that's ok.