[lit-ideas] Re: The Education of a Swain

In a message dated 4/29/2009 3:44:02 P.M.  Eastern Daylight Time, 
mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Is there such a thing  as the philosophy of the 
history of the philosophy of educational  
philosophy?
----

No.

The "philosophy of educational  philosophy" does not ring too true.

"Educational philosophy"  either.

"Philosophy of education" _maybe_ (or 'mabbe' as Geary spells  it). But 
it's second-rate philosophy, as Grice says, of all 'philosophy of ...'  
(language, history, science, logic).

So we do have

PHILOSOPHERS  (Aristotle, Kant, etc.)

They philosophise  on

e.g.

EDUCATION.

The best educator was Mussolini (just  joking) but seriously, 'ducere' was 
the Roman for 'ed-ducere', to  lead.

The Greeks were very confused with 'paidogogos', but the root is  there, to 
lead the child.

The Romans were more broad-minded, to lead in  general. Puerilitas is 
another Roman concept to puerilise the  puer.

----

I prefer 'learn'. The philosophy of 'learning'. But  again, this exceeds 
'teaching' and 'education', since we over-use,  'learn':

"Yesterday, I learned that Michelle Obama doesn't really speak  French".

She speaks it, but not really (Just a silly jocular  example).

------  So why should there be a branch of philosophy for  'learn', 'teach' 
or 'education'. Surely the big problems are "eating people is  wrong", or 
"no knowledge of other minds", etc. 

JLS  

**************Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the 
web. Get the Radio Toolbar! 
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000003)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: