Jeremiah pointed out last week that it would be worth
reflecting on my story about the cursive writing a bit more. So, is there
something to the practice that I’m missing? I suppose that in order to find
out, a sort of open-mindedness is required. I admit that I am quite bitter to
the practice, but when I cast these thoughts aside and actively focus on the
concept in its entirety (including the process by which it is learned,) I can
see that there could be something more than the actual writing itself. I see
this as an opportunity akin to when I first started my study in rhetoric.
Throughout one of my main courses we were required to practice ancient
rhetorical exercises: remembering a speech as parts of a room, creating a
childish story to explain a concept plainly, writing down a sentence in 50
different ways, etc. Some of these made little to no sense on the surface. But
after an active participation into the exercises, I could see their usefulness.
Reflecting on this has broadened my understanding of Dewey’s
open-mindedness. Freedom from prejudice,
partisanship, and such other habits as close the mind and make it unwilling to
consider new problems and entertain new ideas implies more than the active
consideration of concepts unknown. It implies anything that hinders the mind from coming to new understandings,
which includes those concepts that you might already know, but have had bad
experiences or impressions of. Hold no knowledge in contempt.
Today I have reviewed what is possibly the most basic of
pieces concerning open-mindedness. This is where Dewey outlines three attitudes
that cultivate the adoption and use of effective methods of learning, namely, Open-Mindedness, Whole-heartedness, and Responsibility.
Open-Mindedness being as it was defined previously in this post,
Whole-Heartedness being that thorough, genuine interest in what one is doing,
and Responsibility as a sort of fuel that forces one to accept new knowledge
and continue on.
As Dewey is explaining these attitudes, I become
increasingly inclined to think that they may all be summed into Open-Mindedness, if it is as he defines
it. Is this active state not a whole-hearted one? Is it not a state that
requires responsibility? Perhaps Dewey uses these terms to break down the
concept, but as I reach further into the subject, all of these attitudes may be
combined into that same word. Open-Mindedness.
I am constantly reminded of Aristotle’s Ethics and Hume’s
Enquiry when I read Dewey’s philosophy. Hume argues the problem of induction,
stating that even what we believe with the utmost certainty is probable at best. There is no guarantee
that the sun will rise tomorrow, the same as there is no guarantee that your
careful experiments and examinations are predicate of the future or indicative
of what is true. When Dewey is explaining these attitudes he is arguing a
distrust in scientific enquiry as well, implying that at the moment we are
certain, our minds close and we then become lost. We desire a wholeness, a
fact, a unity that is not there. We pay the price of ignorance when we convince
ourselves that this unity exists.
Aristotle argues that in everything there are extremes, and
a balance between these extremes is most desirable. I see in Dewey’s Philosophy
the subject of morality, and its extremes are custom and reflection. In his
early philosophy, Dewey is bias towards reflection. He sits at an extreme. I
applaud his ability to overcome this, likely through the use of his own concept
of open-mindedness, to recognize the extremity of his viewpoint and adopt a
more balanced mindset. To argue that open-minded reflection is the only means
of true understanding is ironically closed-minded. Dewey’s later views show
that both customary and reflective moralities have a pragmatic ethic behind
them, when properly considered.
As I understand these attitudes and concepts and doctrines
so far, the most wise person of all is he or she who is in constant recognition
of their ignorance, considering even their most dear beliefs, and employs an
active and constant defiance against this ignorance with genuine intentions and
desire.
These matters reveal themselves as topics of profound
existential importance.
Dewey, John. “How We Think. A Restatement of the Relation of
Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Part One: The Problem of Training
Thought. 2. Why Reflective Thinking Must Be an Educational Aim. II. Tendencies
Needing Constant Regulation. The Union of Attitude and Skilled Method.” The Later Works of John Dewey, Vol 8
(1933), pp137-138
I’m glad Jeremiah asked you to reflect on the cursive story because I was also interested in hearing more. In fact, I thought about how your story could be related to the ideas about actively engaging all students in multicultural rhetorical styles in order to truly open their minds to those different rhetorical styles. We often teach writing and grammar in the way that your teachers taught you cursive; the result is that some students, particularly those little philosophers like yourself, can’t get past the seeming futility of the exercise enough to engage in it. Is it hypocritical to force them to engage in activities that we believe will help them attain open-mindedness? The sentence that stood out to me most in your story was, “It is unjust to exalt a concept that has not had its time for reflection.” The WPA says that students need “openness” in order to succeed in postsecondary writing, but has this concept had its time for reflection? Of course it has by John Dewey, and by William Hare, but how about the thousands of teachers who are actually interfacing with students in a writing class?
ReplyDelete