A Look Into the Philosophy of William Hare - Making Connections (2011)

I have inquired into the work of William Hare this week, and I must say that his writing is consistent with Dewey, both in syntactical and in philosophical senses. Most of my philosophical study has been through the medium of translation, whether it be from German or French or Greek text. To read work originally written in my native language is both an ease on my mind and a comfort that proper meaning has been conveyed.

A summary of the points made by Hare in Helping Open-mindedness Flourish

1.     Open-mindedness will always exist where the desire for knowledge is genuine.

2.     Open-mindedness involves the concern for truth. However there is an obvious difference between a genuine interest in what is true, and a genuine interest in what you believe to be true.

3.     To believe something is true is not inconsistent with the genuine desire for knowledge, however these believe must always come accompanied with a certain consideration of vulnerability.

4.     This vulnerable, fallibilist view must not reach into the extreme of cynicism, for this transforms open-mindedness into no virtue at all. 

5.     All ideas must be given their proper consideration, but we must be mindful not to reach a sort of gullibility in which even the most ridiculous of ideas is taken seriously. Such gullibility undermines our task for truth.

6.     We must give suitable consideration to our inevitable biases, while remaining mindful that the over-consideration of bias results in the pessimistic realization of the inability to avoid it, and thus diminishes our resolve for open-mindedness.

7.     We must bear in mind the distinction between intending to proceed in an open-minded manner, and actually succeeding at this (Scarree 464) Such a task requires the employment of courage, intellectual humility, and intellectual honesty.

8.     Be wary of the popular yet diminishing opinion of open-mindedness as a kind of tolerant indifference in the face of disagreement (Hare 15)

9.     Wisely judge the usefulness of further consideration and reflection with the virtue to live with uncertainty without being paralyzed by hesitation (Russell 221)

10. A seeming paradox arises when we realize that in order to purport a minority opinion we must retain a sort of dogmatic resolve. However we may replace this taboo of dogmatism with tenaciousness, which describes a sort of stubbornness that does not imply closed-mindedness as well.

Some of Hare’s work seems to be a reiteration of Dewey. But I find content in this reiteration. It seems as though our society holds a prevalent view of political correctness, and, being a contemporary publishing scholar, Hare must obviously abide by this political correctness in order to gain ethos among our society. Certain people have pointed out the possible racial subscriptions of Dewey that undermine his philosophy. I believe that Hare’s viewpoints counter-argue these theories, whether they are right or wrong. The fact that Hare, a contemporary philosopher burdened by the sometimes unfathomable requirement for political correctness (which I often view as an absurd request to purport ourselves beyond the ability of our own humanity) has delved into the concept of open-mindedness and argues points similar if not identical to Dewey, affirms that the philosophical ideas themselves stand as pragmatic and useful regardless of whatever suppositions of bigotry or misconstrued prose reveal themselves within the works of Dewey.

Indeed the very philosophy of open-mindedness itself creates a strong argument against any sort of intolerance or racism, and admits its possibility for fallaciousness as well! Had we the opportunity to discuss with Dewey these claims of ethnocentric behavior, or if we even had the tenacity to make these claims of Hare, what could they say besides “I shall consider your opinions actively and with the utmost respect.” And if Dewey were to be challenged with these theories through the scope of contemporary culture, what could he say but “upon consideration I have deemed these claims of savagery and similar descriptions to be unmindful and unreasonably insensitive to the viewpoints of these cultures.” How insensitive are we, when we challenge this philosophy and make claims of ethnocentrisms, when we discover that the man we are challenging is dead and cannot defend or revise his claims in response? And when we make these claims, we are constantly presented with Dewey’s detailed and fruitful descriptions of open-mindedness, active consideration, etc… To claim Dewey is ethnocentric is to ignore the very philosophy he has created.

Scarre, G. (2005). Excusing the inexcusable? Moral responsibility and ideologically motivated wrongdoing. Journal of Social Philosophy, 36(4), 464

Hare, William. (2011). Helping Open-mindedness Flourish. Journal of Thought, Vol. 46, ½, (pp. 9-20)

Russell, B. (1997). Philosophy. In J. Slater (Ed.), Collected papers of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 11 (pp.221). London, UK. Routledge.

Various Points in "How We Think" / A Theory on the Effects of Public Education (1933)

I hope that in the following statements I do not repeat what I have previously said in my postings. In this posting I am drawing out multiple mentions of open-mindedness throughout Dewey’s How We Think, revised edition. I may purchase How We Think in the near future and read it on my own time. It seems as though I’m getting bits and pieces of it at times, which leads to a discontinuity in my mind as to where these ideas belong and how they are structured in Dewey’s philosophy. Indeed the book itself could at least serve as a sort of reference to organize my research and connect ideas. With permission I will begin a side study on William Hare’s writings within the next few weeks, as far as his ideas relate to open-mindedness and allow me to better understand Karen’s direction with the proposal/dissertation.

In these selections Dewey is discussing the importance of attitudes concerning education, mentioning affordances and constraints, etc... He states that If we were compelled to make a choice between these personal attitudes and knowledge about the principles of logical reasoning with some degree of technical skill in manipulating special logical processes, we should decide for the former. (Dewey 140) In other words, the attitudes and ethics of education take precedence over the reasoning and logical processes of it. But, as Dewey mentions, luckily there is no real opposition between these two and we do not have to choose. Rather, it would be wise to unite the logistics and ethics of education.

This unification is one of specific and general conditions. Specifically a student could be learning math or literature or history, and these topics belong to the logistic aspect of learning, but in general a student could be learning responsibility, mindfulness, cultivation of habit, or in other words the ethics of education, which influence the more specific functions. In teaching math or history without consideration to the ethical aspect, one overlooks the foundation of learning, assuming without reflective consideration that the student understands why they are learning these specific topics.

I hypothesize that this fault in the educational system could be due to a sort of transition in learning from a private to a public matter. Indeed there are many students that do not understand the point of their learning, and perhaps this is because schooling has become a matter of societal requirement. In the past, schooling was viewed as a privilege, and regarded by students as such. From this follows an understanding of the value of all education, and in turn there is no need to teach the point of one’s education. In contemporary times, at least in America, schooling is widely available to the masses, and does not hold the esteem it once had. Students do not come into the public education system with a high regard and respect for learning. Is it possible to foster that high regard again? Yes, according to everything Dewey is saying. Surely these attitudes may be cultivated by limiting public access to education again, but this is not the ethical answer. What arises is the simple yet constant necessity to unify the logical and ethical lessons within the mind of the student. It is the unceasing answering to the question of why. Perhaps the global citizen is in truth (and simply) the citizen that is taught to cultivate ethical importance in their schooling.

Dewey, John. “How We Think, Revised Edition.” The Later Works of John Dewey, Vol 8 (1933), pp140-348

Back to Basics: Some Reflections (1933)

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

Story Time

What seems like a long time ago, I was in third grade. I remember reflecting upon the aim of my schooling often, as true philosophers do regardless of age. In this particular occasion the class was learning how to write in cursive. Naturally I saw no purpose to this topic and questioned why we had to learn how to write in this different style, when we had already learned to write in the first place. “Because when you get to high school and college, this is how they write, and you will need to write this way if you’d like to pass your classes.” And at the time, that was fair enough. As I understood it, higher society wrote this way, and I needed to conform to this to succeed. Cursive was a revered art, and I needed to revere it as well if I was to be accepted and revered one day as well.

Once can assume how the cards played after that.

As I grew up, cursive became less and less important as computers arose as the preferred method of writing. Teachers paid no mind to it. It didn’t matter how you wrote, so long as your notes were readable and your papers were typed. And as I grew up, the concept devolved from exalted to preferred to obsolete. By the time I got to high school it was a different language, and I barely had a reading knowledge of it.

Eventually the time came for my to take my SAT test. I sailed through math, through reading, through writing, and finally came to the section that required our written oath that we had not cheated or taken extra time on any section of the test. I read through the instructions and my heart sank… “You must write this oath in cursive,” it stated, and it took all of my power to internalize the small heart attack that occurred. I knew nothing. My face turned red as I aimlessly looped and squiggled my words, lamenting how inevitably stupid I had made myself look after all that hard work in the other sections, lamenting the years and years spent forgetting the art form, only to have nothing when I needed it most.

So if we wish to revere something in society and hold it high, we must consider above all things our commitment. It is unjust to exalt a concept that has not had its time for reflection. It is also unjust to de-exalt a concept (even if properly de-exalted, for there was truly no reason to teach cursive anymore,) but still expect the young to exalt it as you had learned to. We are required to hold our concepts in a regard par to the regard we require of our students. When we expect reverence we have not properly fostered in the minds of students, we judge them unjustly. Though I tell my story in jest, I must point out that I had lost points due to my loops and scribbles, and to this very day I hold that I had been treated unfairly and unjustly by my educators. Such an unfair expectation on their part has caused me to lose faith in the system, but also inspires me to be the change.

A Later View on Customs (1932)

My mind has recently been plagued with a few thoughts. Dewey seems to be fairly compelled to act against customary morality in his earlier works, and in his later works, as I discuss below, he realizes that his views are radical and comes to a more balanced state, accepting the pros and cons of reflective and customary morality. How can a person be useful if their time is spent in constant reflection? Likewise, how can they be useful if their time is spent in constant act with no reflection? It is interesting to play with the idea of the pragmatic mind as a sort of ying-yang; a balance between the order of reflection and the chaos of act.

Dewey Sections this piece of work into four parts, namely:

1.     Meaning, Authority, and Origin of Customs

2.     Means of Enforcing Customs

3.     Conditions Which Bring Out the Importance of Group Standards and Render Group Control Conscious

4.     Values and Defects of Customary Morality

Meaning, Authority, and Origin of Customs

The definition of customs and customary morality has not changed much from Dewey’s experience. It is still the morality that deals with groups, what is acceptable by a group, conforming to the standard, etc. But the telos has received a much lighter, pragmatic definition in this work. Dewey describes it as a means to keep peace, promote welfare, and maintain right relations within a society or group. They are habits, but they are more than that. Customs have received a usefulness they had been robbed of in Dewey’s earlier works.

Who holds authority on customs? Not simply the old men or priests closest to the founding of custom knowing the reasoning of customs well, but the group itself is an authority. The God or Gods are authority; the totems are authority, and even the dead. When a person acts against a society they act against the gods, against the dead, against the civilization, being comprised of all these things together. Regard for society and custom becomes a sort of religious reverence, as Dewey describes it, and custom becomes, at least in our mindset, part of nature. If Dewey has come to understand anything, it is the true awesomeness of custom. Its power is unfathomably great.

Customs originate from concepts of luck and fairness, as I can discern from Dewey’s writing. To create custom is to bid society to do what will bring them luck, or bid them to do what is just.

Means of Enforcing Customs

Certainly if there is any development in Dewey’s philosophy it is here, and in the following section. His early impression of custom is a form of ignorance, and now he discusses the means of enforcing custom and its importance.

The most general means, by his phrasing, are public opinion, taboo, ritual or ceremony, and physical force. Of course, in modern American society it seems little to not likely to use physical force to enforce any habit of learning, so I lean more towards the concepts of public opinion and taboo, and perhaps ritual practices. The means by which a custom is brought about, at least in contemporary society, is convincing the public that an action is good and just, and making the opposition of said action into a taboo. To loosely relate it to our subject in particular, “it is good and just to foster an open-mindedness. To do otherwise would categorize us as ignorant, and to foster ignorance is surely least desirable in our profession of education.”

Conditions Which Bring Out the Importance of Group Standards and Render Group Control Conscious

Three conditions arise a concept of importance of group standards; education of the young, constraint and restraint of refractory members of the group, and occasions involving a crisis, which bring about sudden especial care. Obviously we focus on education of the young. Dewey’s acknowledgement of the usefulness of custom is evident here. He describes ritual procedures of the tribes of Central Australia, which may seem ill related, but hear me out.

The idea here is the piousness put forth through society into a concept. These tribes hold rituals and procedures that make a boy into a man, and the culture as a whole regards these rituals and ceremonies as sacred beyond all things. As a boy goes through these rituals he fosters this same idea of reverence and piousness, and when it comes time for him to perform the ritual for another, he is imbued with these feelings as his predecessors were. These tribes exalt this process, and though Dewey would perhaps argue that the ends to this process could use some reflective morality, he would not argue the concept of instilling piousness as an ideal method to retain a custom. Reverence is the fuel that drives custom through a society, and if the custom has obtained a fair amount of reflection and consideration, and deemed good/just, installation of reverence is surely good and just as well.

Values and Defects of Customary Morality

I believe that I have discussed the value of customary morality to a sufficient extent, so I will move immediately to the defects. The primary defect of customary morality is unchanged. It is the danger that through habit, reflection can be trampled and made taboo itself. In areas where it may flourish it is snuffed for what can appear as no reason at all. Dewey describes, Dr. Arthur Smith tells us of the advantage it would be in certain parts of China to build a door on the south side of the house in order to get a breeze in hot weather. The simple and sufficient answer to such a question is, “We don’t build doors on the south side.”

Habit limits freedom to think and change. But as human beings we create habit, so surely we must accept that it is useful in some way, though it is indeed a dangerous, often limiting mode of thought.

Summary

I fear that I’ve rambled a bit to get my ideas out, so I summarize in the following statements: The purpose of custom can be seen as an efficient way to promote welfare, keep peace, and maintain correct relations, though it is indeed dangerous and can often snuff reflection and implementation of change. To meet the ends of this morality, custom must be fostered by those revered within a society, and indeed the society itself. As educators, we take the role of those revered and respected with regard to knowledge, and how it is obtained. This fostering cannot be a simple regard, or desire to create habit, but must be an actual piousness. If we wish to create a global citizen that truly desires an open mind, then we must exalt the concept. We must act as if it is the highest of highs, and requires a sort of faithfulness and respect. The Christians say that in order to find God, one must do God’s will, and if you will toward God, then your heart will follow. Let us will toward open-mindedness then, and if we try hard enough, our hearts will surely follow. 

Dewey, John. "Ethics, Revised Edition. Part 1: The Beginnings and Growth of Morality. 4. Group Morality - Customs or Mores." The Later Works of John Dewey, Vol 7 (1932), pp 50-68

Customary and Reflective Morality (1908)

Thus far I have discussed open-mindedness as a sort of active scientific method. So I find it reasonable to consider the following: How does open-mindedness fare as an ethical concept? I believe that this selection answers that question, in which Dewey separates customary and reflective morality.

“[Reflective Morality] make[s] a clear distinction between ‘manners’ and morals, while in customary morality manners are morals[.]”

Customary morality is the morality that combines everything. The decisions of how to act or behave hold equal weight to the decisions of how to dress or what to eat. Morality such as this is commonly seen in religion, but more modernly in professions such as business. A businessman may do something not because it is truly right and good, but because it is custom, and custom is good.

“[M]any business men do not bother themselves about the morality of certain ways of doing business. Such and such is the custom of the trade, and if a man is going to do business at all he must follow its customs – or get out.”

Reflective morality separates act and behavior from culture and custom, and adopts the viewpoint that all things can and should be considered for reform, despite tradition and habit.

The problem of customary morality is that it is hard to change, even if change is necessary. To revolt against the custom is to be deemed impious, and such persons will be exiled or punished for their intelligence. Custom then continues ad infinidum, lest there be a divine intervention or conquering by war.

Indeed even the observance of custom is not enough for Dewey. The reflective mindset goes beyond this mere observance and takes ground in active consideration. A child of customary morality may be taught that the fork is on the left and the knife on the right but the reflective person asks why this is so, and rules out the ethical importance of such customs in exchange for principles more worthy of serious thought. “[T]he individual has to grasp the meaning of these customs over and above the bare fact of their existence, and has to guide himself by their meaning and not by the mere fact noted.”

Dewey is pointing at the fact that unless we adopt a collectively reflective mindset, we are doomed to remain in a vicious circle of ignorance. Custom may give us comfort, for it implies order and society, but what is custom when it is compared to vast conscious consideration and reflection? The reflective mind may look toward the customary mind comically, for the reflective person leaps and walks through the ethical while the mind of custom merely stands blindfolded, taking no interest in their ability to do as the reflective person does.

The adoption of this reflective morality is an inward process, as Dewey describes it. When a person’s experience causes them to question their customs and habits, they realize their ability to judge for themselves the rightness of their actions, that the current standard is not justification of its own conduct. The fact that it exists is no moral warrant (as Dewey describes it.) Thus, reflection is adopted and fostered as a responsibility in a person’s mind. Active consideration becomes an obligation of a person to his or her society.

“In the morally more advanced members of contemporary society, the need of fostering a habit of examination and judgment, of keeping the mind open, sensitive, to the defects and the excellences of the existing social order is recognized as obligation.”

As an ethical concept, open-mindedness is the gateway to transition between customary thought and reflective thought. To adopt the viewpoint that despite what I have been taught and what I believe to be right, there may be something out there that is more right, of which I do not know yet, and I should actively search for what is more right is the means by which a person may actively refine their ethical viewpoints independently, as opposed to the means of some will of God or decree by a King or Dictator. To analogize, customary morality is to be a passenger on a bus and reflective morality to be the operator of your own vehicle. Open-mindedness is the means by which you get off the bus and begin driving your own car. Indeed it implies a sort of moral freedom. 

The means by which a person comes to want open-mindedness is a concept tenfold complex. People like their habits. People cling to their customs. To convince a man/woman to cast their thoughts of the ethical into doubt seems equally as hard as convincing them to doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow. “This is how it is,” they would say. “To think differently is to err.” How may a student foster this idea and become a reflective thinker, then? What cause can there be for open-mindedness to plague and kill the vicious customary beliefs? When we travel to other societies, our instinct to survive kicks in and we open our minds or perish in the walls of our customs. This is a proven method by which a person may open their mind. They who place themselves in other cultures are akin to they who travel to a place where the sun does not always rise in the morning. (above the arctic circle during the winter solstice, perhaps?) 

So if we wish to ask ourselves “can we foster an active open-mindedness in students?” we truly ask ourselves “can there be something that impresses the mind with such force as experience?” Such questions are ideal starting points for further enquiries. 

Dewey, John. “Ethics. Part 1 The Beginnings and Growth of Morality. 9. A General Comparison of Customary and Reflective Morality. § 2. Elements of Contrast.” The Middle Works of John Dewey, Vol 5 (1908), pp. 166-171

The Joining of Method and Subject (1916)

Past Masters, the elusive mistress of knowledge, is finally in my hands. She is just as fair as I had imagined. Beginning with a search on open-mindedness yielded plentiful results, of which I plan on going through in the next few weeks to grasp a better understanding of how Dewey arrives at this definition of open-mindedness.

In this 1916 work, Dewey is describing the Nature of Method, one of the trinity school topics (the other two being subject matter and administration.) There is immediate mention of education, pedagogy, and theory, so naturally it’s an excitingly relevant piece.

Dualism: The philosophical idea that the mind and the body are separate, that mental states cannot breach the physical and visa-versa.

By the theory of dualism, we can infer the possibility of creating methods of educating that are independent of the subject to which they apply. In other words, it is possible to create methods and theories for learning without observing the student or students to which the theories will apply. This is, of course, a bit ridiculous, as all rationalism is when put to the pragmatic test. As Dewey describes it, “this state of affairs gives opportunity for the retort that pedagogy, as an alleged science of methods of the mind in learning, is futile[.]” The idea that mind and body are separate destroys the concept that pedagogy is useful. While we may be able to devise proofs and theories in logic that support dualism, all teachers will eventually admit to the necessity to consider their reflections on true experience and alter their methods and beliefs accordingly.

Though we may already be aware that Dewey’s open-mindedness is an empirical idea, weighted by reflection both mental AND experiential, The above paragraph serves as a suitable explanation for why he believes this. Rationalistic dualism is useless and prevents us from gaining knowledge as well. Empiricism admits the futility of the metaphysical and focuses on the world at hand. The matter of whether or not this pencil exists is irrelevant and wasteful. The method by which a student is taught to use it is an enquiry of far greater importance.

Establishing that Dewey rejects the idea of dualism, we can draw that he desires to imply their connection. Mind is to body as method is to subject. And method, for Dewey, is “that arrangement of subject matter which makes it most effective in use[,] […] an effective way of employing some material for some end.” He describes this concept of method and how it is not separate from subject matter in detail. I list a few notable quotes below:

“We can distinguish a way of acting, and discuss if by itself; but the way exists only as a way-of-dealing-with-material. Method is not antithetical to subject matter; it is the effective direction of subject matter to desired results.”

“[T]here is no distinction of subject matter and method. There is simply an activity which includes both what an individual does and what the environment does.”

“When a man is eating, he is eating food. He does not divide his act into eating and food.”

“It would be no less absurd to suppose that men can eat without eating something.”

Method is fostered and refined through the empirical mindset, being the scientific method. When we experience something, we apply the successes and failures of our attempts to refine our method into something anew.

Dewey struggled with the practices used in the educational system, as we do today. He states “in instruction and discipline, there is rarely sufficient opportunity for children and youth to have direct normal experiences from which educators might derive an idea of method or order of best development.” The educational system, taking the approach of rationalism and believing that the mind can learn on its own independent of experience, hinders not only the student but the teacher as well. Methods cannot be refined and applied to the individual when there are no experiences to be considered. The individual loses the opportunity to gain the most efficient and beneficial education; the teachers lose the opportunity to experience and reflect upon their methods to further educate themselves.

I've created a list that organizes Dewey’s “evils in education that flow from the isolation of method from subject.”

1.     Neglect of concrete situations of experience

2.     The fostering of false conceptions of discipline and interest

a.     Utilization of Excitement: Reward

b.     Utilization of Consequence: Pain

c.      Utilization of Discourse: Fear

3.     “The act of learning is made a direct and conscious end in itself”

“[W]hen the subject matter is not used in carrying forward impulses and habits to significant results, it is just something to be learned.”

So when we are attempting to create the global citizen, we must do so by means of an empirical approach, accepting the twining nature of method and subject. We must create educational methods as an efficient and pragmatic approach, subject to revision based on further experiences or particular situations. We mustn't neglect experience, foster false conceptions of consequence, or beg the question when asked why we learn. What, then, characterizes the correct approach to pedagogy that will yield educated and open-minded students?

There are four attitudes that must hold constant consideration:

1.     Directness: The straightforwardness/confidence that a person directs towards what they need to do. Being a “decision-maker”

2.     Open-Mindedness: “An attitude of mind which actively welcomes suggestions and relevant information from all sides”

3.     Single-Mindedness: The completion of interest, or true mental integrity toward a subject to be learned.

4.     Responsibility: The acceptance and carefully weighed consideration of consequence of action.

(Further enquiry can be made into these four attitudes, but perhaps that should take place another day)

Dewey identifies the multiple dos and don'ts of education in this work. And among them all is this prevalent idea of the conjoining of method and experience. He describes the deprivations experienced by a student that learns in a setting deprived of true experience, where method and subject are isolated. And at the time he is writing this, I believe he is in a similar state that this hypothetical student is. With regard to open-mindedness to Chinese culture, Dewey is isolated from the subject. Anything he has learned he has learned through second-hand, from researching and reading and general conversation. He lacks the true experience of China, and for that reason he is deprived of the most beneficial education he could receive.

I believe that I have properly identified open-mindedness and it’s necessity (at least to a suitable introductory level,) but one question still haunts me. It stems from the third evil of isolation of method and subject. Namely, Learning simply to learn. What is the point of being open-minded? Thus far I have seen that it functions as a better way to learn for Dewey, but this creates the very evil that Dewey warns us to avoid. How does he escape this evil? What does Dewey believe to be the ends of this proficient method of learning?

Dewey, John. “Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. 13: The Nature of Method” The Middle Works of John Dewey, Vol 9 (1916), pp. 172-188