none

1. Quite literally, the term "philosophy" means, "love of wisdom." In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity
people undertake when they seek to understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which
they live, and their relationships to the world and to each other. As an academic discipline philosophy is
much the same. Those who study philosophy are perpetually engaged in asking, answering, and arguing
for their answers to life’s most basic questions. To make such a pursuit more systematic academic
philosophy is traditionally divided into major areas of study.
nother important aspect of the study of philosophy is the arguments or reasons given for people’s
answers to these questions. To this end philosophers employ logic to study the nature and structure of
arguments
Dewey's philosophy of education highlights the importance of imagination to drive thinking and learning
forward, and for teachers to provide opportunities for students to suspend judgement, engage in the playful
consideration of possibilities, and explore doubtful possibilities.
Philosophy of Education
First published Mon Jun 2, 2008; substantive revision Sun Oct 7, 2018
Philosophy of education is the branch of applied or practical philosophy concerned with the nature and
aims of education and the philosophical problems arising from educational theory and practice. Because
that practice is ubiquitous in and across human societies, its social and individual manifestations so
varied, and its influence so profound, the subject is wide-ranging, involving issues in ethics and
social/political philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind and language, and other
areas of philosophy. Because it looks both inward to the parent discipline and outward to educational
practice and the social, legal, and institutional contexts in which it takes place, philosophy of education
concerns itself with both sides of the traditional theory/practice divide. Its subject matter includes both
basic philosophical issues (e.g., the nature of the knowledge worth teaching, the character of educational
equality and justice, etc.) and problems concerning specific educational policies and practices (e.g., the
desirability of standardized curricula and testing, the social, economic, legal and moral dimensions of
specific funding arrangements, the justification of curriculum decisions, etc.). In all this the philosopher
of education prizes conceptual clarity, argumentative rigor, the fair-minded consideration of the
interests of all involved in or affected by educational efforts and arrangements, and informed and well-
reasoned valuation of educational aims and interventions.
Philosophy of education has a long and distinguished history in the Western philosophical tradition,
from Socrates’ battles with the sophists to the present day. Many of the most distinguished figures in
that tradition incorporated educational concerns into their broader philosophical agendas (Curren 2000,
2018; Rorty 1998). While that history is not the focus here, it is worth noting that the ideals of reasoned
inquiry championed by Socrates and his descendants have long informed the view that education should
foster in all students, to the extent possible, the disposition to seek reasons and the ability to evaluate
them cogently, and to be guided by their evaluations in matters of belief, action and judgment. This
view, that education centrally involves the fostering of reason or rationality, has with varying
articulations and qualifications been embraced by most of those historical figures; it continues to be
defended by contemporary philosophers of education as well (Scheffler 1973 [1989]; Siegel 1988, 1997,
2007, 2017). As with any philosophical thesis it is controversial; some dimensions of the controversy
are explored below.
Related
What is your philosophy of education?
Interesting question and the answer should be pretty easy to articulate. It’s not. I’ll try to make sense of latter
declarative sentence.

2. First, it is important to understand that in order to have a philosophy it has to be connected to something that
exists (even if it is an idea) and can be explained based on what it is rather than what it is not. For example,
some people slap a sticker on their car that has the words “coexist” or “tolerance” on it. They think that
these words apply to humanity, they believe that these words apply to themselves (even overtly stating that
they are a significant part of their identity), and they actually believe that these words are more than just
words; they can be actualized. Thus, it qualifies as a philosophy, albeit a stupid one. Because the words
don’t really mean anything as they relate to being human and because they cannot be achieved, nor can they
be defined, this philosophy is about as meaningful as having a philosophy about the anthropomorphic nature
of the Easter bunny.
For the sake of a proper argument, I am obligated to provide a few operational definitions. First, education
means a process through which information is passed by the master to the pupil. When the pupil as able to
harness the knowledge and make use of it we call it learning, and learning means a change in an organism
based on experience. It also means that generalization has occurred; that the pupil can use what they have
learned across multiple settings.
There are a host of ways through which humans and other animals can learn. Because those in positions of
leadership within education are pathologically inept they always seem to use a behaviorist approach as it
relates to both faculty and students. Specifically, Skinnerian variants of operant conditioning tend to be the
preferred flavor, along with a healthy dose of Watsonian behaviorist principles. Both theoretical frameworks
can be/are really complex and beyond the scope of this response. In simple terms, it is a given (based on
what can be observed—pun intended) that A+B+C=You, where “A” is an antecedent (whatever comes
before something), “B” is the behavior (anything that can be observed; if it cannot be observed it is
ignored…like thinking), and “C” is the consequence to the behavior (pleasant consequences=greater
likelihood of behavior and unpleasant consequences=less likelihood of behavior). So, it is assumed that you
are simply an equation and that equation can and will be used in an attempt to modify what and who you are
into a more perfect automaton. The good news is that while these practices work really well on young
children and trainable animals, they do not work on people who are neurologically sophisticated enough to
think before they act and know that they exist as an independent, autonomous, sentient creature.
A further assumption in education is very similar to the original sin perspective on human nature, which is
that we are all bad until we learn to be good. Baby Jesus is simply replaced with educational leaders, and
educational leadership is measured by how well one instills fear and uncertainty within faculty and support
staff, and then how well they pass it on to their students. Visionaries, idealists, pragmatists, critical thinkers,
those who have even a basic understanding of cultural heterogeneity and development are not given
positions of leadership. They are viewed as agitators and boat rockers; kind of like the people who helped
black citizens exercise their right to vote back in the early 60’s. Actually, this metaphor is more accurate
than it initially appears. Kids are the new disfavored and heavily marginalized group. They are expected to
do as they are told, not ask questions, never challenge academic authority—meaning education/educators are
the new God and God is above skepticism. Thus, there will be harsh reprisals, both physical and
psychological, for breaking the rules. So, a kid is expected to accept as truth whatever they are told at school
even if that means rejecting core values, attitudes, and beliefs that are an embedded part of the child’s family
and the larger ethnically representative community. At this point, there is no longer a thing that resembles
education as it has existed since the 16th century. In fact, it’s pretty much the same thing as what was
done/not done during the Church sponsored dark ages, where knowledge gained outside of the context of the
Church was considered heresy and punishable by excommunication or death. And death…well, that might
have actually been better than excommunication
Current practices in K-12 classrooms are only behavioral conditioning that leads to a myopic, diseased, and
dangerous worldview. There is no learning. Valid, reliable, and objective measures of actual learning do not
exist save for the ones that are administered only after parental consent has been provided, and then only for
the purposes of identifying a learning disability. End of course tests only assess the rote memory skills of
students, not the academic skills of students. Further, the tests are so poorly constructed that state
departments of education generally refuse to disclose raw data to researchers. To do so would only highlight
the degree of cognitive genocide perpetrated by school personnel on their students.

3. Teachers outnumber administration by a ratio of 30 to 1. That education fails to exist with a power
differential this big is hard to imagine. Think of it this way: you are with 29 other like minded people. You
want something to change and you are doing something to bring more attention to what you believe and
value. 1 police officer strolls up and tells all of you to take a walk. There are no reinforcements coming to
aid the 1 police officer, and what you are doing is clearly protected under free speech rights. Thus, the police
officer is not upholding the law; he or she is actually breaking the law when insisting that you take a walk.
Will you? Take a walk, that is? I hope not. It’s just one cop who doesn’t even possess the skills necessary to
properly do his or her job.
The tragedy is that, in spite of the power differential, nothing of any real substance or meaning occurs.
People in education love to talk. They just hate having to do something, particularly if they are going to have
to do it alone. Shit gets real when someone can clearly see that they have a moral imperative to do
something and then not do it because (fill in your justification here). At that point, they are equally guilty of
the crimes against children being perpetrated by federal, state, and local education agencies. Telling the
judge during the Nuremberg trials that one was simply following orders was not a sufficient excuse for
throwing people into ovens, gas showers, or forcing them to stand at the precipice of a big ditch before
shooting them in the back. I’m fairly certain the same policy would hold up if kids were allowed to hold
their own Nuremberg trials.
My philosophy of education? Apathy and postmodern thought has killed it. Should it resurrect, it will
happen when the adults who run the show exhibit a more refined set of problem solving, pro-social skills
than the wee little people in kindergarten, and that consensus driven policy is a fear-based practice usually
associated with fascism. Until then, I guess I don’t have one. I can’t because education does not meet the
criteria for existence nor connectedness