Upon reading this I first thought of how great of a starting
point this piece was. It seems to me that Dewey is establishing a connection
between academic study and society. And if a dissertation has a sort of telos, it is to be of use to and educate
society, and specifically those interested in the field.
Within this work, Dewey concerns himself with the study of
science, essentially relating it to knowledge as a whole. His beginning point states,
“The field of knowledge cannot be attacked en
masse. It must be broken up into problems, and, as a rule, detailed aspects
and phases of these problems must be discriminated into still lesser elements.”
In other words, the advancement of a field requires a certain degree of
specialization and detail. But as a study becomes more specific, it becomes more
remote to society as a whole.
Dewey’s pragmatic mindset is immediately evident as he continues
to say that advancements in the fields of science and knowledge as a whole have
transformed the way society functions and communicates, as they still do today.
Intellectual advancement results in consequence as well, however. As an
example, Dewey illustrates, “The intellect is at present subdued by the results
of its own intellectual victories. It has become a commonplace to refer to
consequences of chemistry in its application to warfare.” Knowledge is painted
as both a blessing and a weapon by Dewey’s example.
These preliminary thoughts on knowledge and society can
heavily relate to the topic of this dissertation. As a field is explored and
expanded, its vastness and complexity become harder to master, and so certain
subfields are created. As more and more knowledge is fostered, it becomes more
remote. This is possibly the reason that we do not study certain rhetorical
styles within our culture. The study is so vast and complex that we have come
to a point where entire styles are unbeknownst to us throughout our entire
formal educational experience due to their remoteness. As chemical weapons are
a consequence of chemistry, cultural ignorance can be seen as the consequence
of a vast field of rhetoric.
So what must we do when faced with the consequences of
intellectual enquiry? As Dewey states, “The wounds made by applications of
science can be healed only by a further extension of applications of knowledge
and intelligence; like the purpose of all modern healing it must be preventive
as well as curative. This is the supreme obligation of intellectual activity at
the present time.” Dewey believes that the consequences of knowledge can only
be remedied with more knowledge.
It is appearing to me that Dewey’s concept of
open-mindedness is rooted in science. He describes that the responsibility of
science cannot be fulfilled by specialized study and information; rather it
requires attention to “adopt into the very make-up of their minds those
attitudes of open-mindedness, intellectual integrity, observation, and interest
in testing their opinions and beliefs that are characteristic of a scientific
attitude.” Throughout this journal publication, Dewey refers to the necessity
of the scientific attitude multiple times. It seems as though this scientific
attitude could possibly be his
definition of open-mindedness. In contemporary society, one is apt to be
confused by this. Generally in the 21st century, open-mindedness is
referred to as a more passive mode of unbiased thought and scientific enquiry
as an active form. Indeed, Dewey thinks them one and the same.
Dewey, John. “EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSION: The Supreme
Intellectual Obligation.” Bulletin of the
American Assiciation of University Professors, Vol 20, No. 5 (May, 1934),
pp. 306-309
It is the possibility of this project being useful in some way (especially to those interested in the combined fields of Rhetoric & Composition and ESL) that makes this dissertation particularly interesting, in my opinion. The idea that philosophy is not just for the sake of thinking but for the sake of something happening as a result of that thinking is what makes pragmatism so appealing.
ReplyDeleteI am also particularly interested in the idea that "cultural ignorance can be seen as the consequence of a vast field of rhetoric." We have a limited amount of time with our students, and a lot of material to cover in the composition classroom, even when the goal is primarily to help students write essays that are considered acceptable by professors who have themselves been trained in a linear rhetorical style. How, then, can we find the time and space in composition studies to further explore the "vast field" of multicultural rhetorical styles, an exploration that will lead to even more inquiry, yet one that I regard as critical?
I am also wondering about the difference between the following two sentences: "As more and more knowledge is fostered, it becomes more remote" and " . . the consequences of knowledge can only be remedied with more knowledge." These two sentences seem contradictory to me, but maybe I’m missing the point. The first seems to mean that the more we know, the more we realize we don’t know, whereas the second seems to mean that knowledge creates questions that can only be answered by more knowledge. I guess the first seems more infinite to me than the second. Any thoughts? And how can we relate this to Dewey’s concept of open-mindedness?
Finally, I am intrigued, as you know, with the idea of open-mindedness as something that must be actively pursued, so the concept of open-mindedness and a scientific method being one and the same is interesting and something that I would like you to continue look out for while you're reading other works.
Thanks for a great start – lots of food for thought.
The first sentence, to me, describes the expansion of knowledge and our ability to grasp it. Like the universe, knowledge is constantly expanding, and as it expands we must accept that we know less and less of it. This is a problem. Tying into the second statement, the only way to revolt against this constant expansion, this unending expansion of remoteness, is to gain more knowledge and try to keep up with this growth. This is a solution.
ReplyDeleteThe second statement can also be interpreted as follows. With knowledge comes great power and with power comes great consequence of action. To coincide with Dewey's example, when scientific knowledge is applied to something such as chemical weapons, we may only remedy this mistake with the knowledge we gain to stop/prevent usage of such weapons. In other words, whenever something happens as a result of advancement of knowledge, whether it be good or bad, our only choice is to move forward and increase our knowledge to such an extent that we are able to meet and combat such consequences.
Hope that helps shed a bit of light on those phrases! If not, we can go over them together when we meet on the 17th.