Philosophy Now Forum

Michael Brady finds John Dewey’s lost book compelling.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Unm ... John_Dewey

I missed this article until Philosophy Now posted it on Facebook, which goes to show you the importance and necessity of social media to wake-up and bring to life the dormant.

I totally agree with Dewey, that too often modern philosophy has been grounded in Platonic thinking. And I find that Philosophy Now also seems to be stuck in this mud because I find it focuses a lot on the philosophy of such thinkers. It's like being a chauvinist, which Plato was.

I think this is why Karl Marx is still such a big deal, even though he is not my cup of tea. Marx countered Platonic thinking, that the mind and body are not that separate and both can learn from the other. Marx was a holistic thinker, unlike Plato, who strongly believed in the separation of things. Marx's unorthodox thinking is what led to the revolutionary thinking of dialectical materialism, which was opposed to Plato's way of thinking, which is like dialectical idealism.

Dewey's philosophy is more operational, in that it combines theory and practice, the way of the modern world and what made it. Marx's was the same. Plato's philosophy is really of an ancient world, as Dewey recognized it. Dewey was right to think that Platonic thinking held back the development and progress of Civilization.

Plato's philosophy should not be treated as meaningful in today's world. It is more ornamentation.

spike wrote:I missed this article until Philosophy Now posted it on Facebook, which goes to show you the importance and necessity of social media to wake-up and bring to life the dormant.

I totally agree with Dewey, that too often modern philosophy has been grounded in Platonic thinking. And I find that Philosophy Now also seems to be stuck in this mud because I find it focuses a lot on the philosophy of such thinkers. It's like being a chauvinist, which Plato was.

I think this is why Karl Marx is still such a big deal, even though he is not my cup of tea. Marx countered Platonic thinking, that the mind and body are not that separate and both can learn from the other. Marx was a holistic thinker, unlike Plato, who strongly believed in the separation of things. Marx's unorthodox thinking is what led to the revolutionary thinking of dialectical materialism, which was opposed to Plato's way of thinking, which is like dialectical idealism.

Dewey's philosophy is more operational, in that it combines theory and practice, the way of the modern world and what made it. Marx's was the same. Plato's philosophy is really of an ancient world, as Dewey recognized it. Dewey was right to think that Platonic thinking held back the development and progress of Civilization.

Plato's philosophy should not be treated as meaningful in today's world. It is more ornamentation.

"Plato's philosophy should not be treated as meaningful in today's world."
SPIKE: Should Plato's thought be studied as an objective historical reality? Is Plato's philosophy meaningful as an historical philosophical reality?

I'm currently rereading Christopher Dawson's The Crisis of Western Education(1961).
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Western-Ed ... her+dawson

Dawson argued that in the university Christian culture should be studied as an objective historical reality. Dawson wrote: "What is needed...is a study of Christian culture as a social reality - its origins , development and achievements - for this would provide a background of framework that would integrate the liberal studies which at present are apt to disintegrate into unrelated specialisms....It is a cultural study in the sociological and historical sense, and it would devote more attention to the social institutions and the moral values of Christian culture than to its literary and artistic achievements." p. 137

Dawson also wrote:

"Consequently anyone who wishes to understand our own culture as it exists today cannot dispense with the study of Christian culture, whether he is a Christian or not. Indeed in some ways this study is more necessary for the secularist than for the Christian, because he lacks the ideological key to the understanding of the past which every Christian ought to possess," p. 136

Regarding understanding our Western civilization, is it reasonable to say that it is necessary to study both Christian culture and Platonic philosophy as historical social realities?

What say you, SPIKE

tbieter,

It's always good to study the past and what transpired. It does have a relevance. It's what has helped make us what we are today. So in that regard it is good to study Plato's thinking. But what I object to is that people think Plato's ideas of how society should be structured are relevant, or even possible today, which they aren't.

I acknowledge that Christianity had a very significant and important part in developing and organizing our civilization. Our Western world would not be as it is without the structure Christianity gave it. But if we today continued to be hamstrung by past Christian thinking we would be in something like the dark ages. The same, my point is, would be if we stuck to Platonic thinking.

This is what John Dewey was on about, that the majority of 20th century philosophy was still stuck in old world thinking, even in its footnotes.

Well, I didn't fine the book that interesting. I was lured in by its magnificent cover.