Does education disconnect you from reality or make the connection stronger?

[Pongobongo]

It seems to me that there are two major schools of thought when it comes to education. And before you start throwing out all kinds of other schools of thought, I'm simply refering to context of this topic, not education in general.

The first is based on keeping things simple and focusing on what is around you. Learning what you need to learn when you need to learn it. This is basic, no-frills education. It asserts that learning about things that are not immediately around distracts from what is around you. Basically, that the more your learn of other worlds the less you understand and appreaciate your own world; your focus shifts.

The second is based on starting with what is around you and expanding from there. Learning for learning's sake. It asserts that learning about things not immediately around enhances what is around you. Basically, that by learning of other worlds you will understand and appreciate your own world that much more; you focus expands.

I have several thoughts on both schools of thought, but will wait for some of you to weigh in before I post them. So basically, which school are you of and why, but more importantly why not the other.

Only by understanding the view points of others can you intelligently express your own...

[de_budding]

The second. If I am not too wrong in interpreting 'other world[s]' as possible 'tools' of learning, for example mathematics or geometry. this way you are better equipped for 'Learning what you need to learn when you need to learn it.'
Dan.

[Pongobongo]

Originally Posted by de_budding

The second. If I am not too wrong in interpreting 'other world[s]' as possible 'tools' of learning, for example mathematics or geometry. this way you are better equipped for 'Learning what you need to learn when you need to learn it.'
Dan.

You're not too wrong, in fact you are quite correct. By other worlds I did in fact mean the worlds of mathematics, science, literature, etc. They co-exist with our own perception of reality, but are not apparent unless pointed out, hence education.

I completely agree with your statement that you are then better equiped to learn what you need when you need to learn it. You can go through life learning like a child (not necessarily a bad thing) or you can learn to learn better (i.e. faster and more thoroughly). Man is like an athlete, naturally gifted, but able to train to enhance that gift. Some choose to train, others do not.

I hope I have not misinterpreted your statements. If so I apologize.

[de_budding]

Not at all, you got it dot-on. But now I wonder where to start? Would be useful to know as I plan to enter the realms of primary teaching when I finish Uni.

Any thoughts on what worlds would unlock others most efficiently?

[Doobah47]

I do not think it is the educational establishment that harms children's connection to reality, I think the connection is harmed by the infrastructure of social intercourse, and the programs and routines that are pressed onto children or that they develop as a reaction to adult society. I'm not talking about social establishments (such as the police), but about social intercourse and attitudes which diffuse into children's minds and subconscious thus affecting the way they relate to reality.

Of course school is a prime example of social interaction, however social intercourse for school children is generally with other children of the same age, so their minds are not infested so much with the prejudices and 'brainwashing' of the adult generations. The educational establishment provides an environment and information, so it does improve one's connection with reality albeit in a slightly surreal, abstracted way (learning tends to come through language as opposed to contact with objects).

Although one could say that one's 'reality' is everything that one is involved with in an objective context, so then adult's interactions and prejudices are part of the 'reality' this topic intends to discuss, I would say that the social nature of human beings is far removed from a more organic nature - we suffer from communal delusions, of grandeur or of fashions and more, and a 'delusion' is supposed to mean opinions irrelevant to reality, and in a way they are 'untrue'. So a child would probably become more delusional when interacting with human society than because of being forced to attend an institution, although I'm not saying that institutions do not press delusional social interaction.

[de_budding]

That's kind of what I wanted to implicate when I reffered to 'Learning what you need to learn when you need to learn it.' as tools to combat such things. But I'd like to think we could help develop the 'connection to reality' in the educational establish .
Dan.

[Pongobongo]

Originally Posted by de_budding

Not at all, you got it dot-on. But now I wonder where to start? Would be useful to know as I plan to enter the realms of primary teaching when I finish Uni.

Any thoughts on what worlds would unlock others most efficiently?

That's a pretty loaded question. No one world unlocks others any faster than any other. My advice would be choose the one you personally enjoy the most. It is much easier to teach when you are into the subject yourself. Don't go after the biggest paycheck, or where the jobs are, go where you want. The world doesn't need any more uninterested, apathetic teachers.

Just out of curiosity what you going to Uni for? That would be a good place to start, unless you dislike it.

Another tid bit would be this: learn how to learn. Not only will that help you in the future, it will allow you to teach others in the way that works best for them. Everyone learns a little differently and you need to be able to recognize what is and what is not working for them. That's how no child is left behind.

[Pongobongo]

As to what world I feel would be the best to begin with, I'd say science.

You get the scientific method for figuring things out. You learn disection, which works for ideas as well as physical objects. You also encounter mathematical equations. And all of it requires reasoning and reading to work out.

More importantly though it requires interacting. You cannot truly test a theory until you physically recreate it. And a lot of that involves more than one person working together as a team. Book smarts are great to have, but they don't really mean anything until you can apply them or express them.

Then again, the universe in built on math. And books are the gateway to knowledge. So it come down to the human world. What do you prefer? What do you have access to? That sort of thing.

[VideCorSpoon]

It seems like the two are one and the same, only the second modus expands on the basic principle of both, that is, focusing on what’s around you. This seems like criterion for empirical a-posteriori wisdom.

But if you want my opinion, it would be for the second and here is why. It seems as though the difference in the two is picking between constrained and un-constrained knowledge. The first is an immediate focus and the second is an acceptance of the first and an extrapolation upon it. I think most could agree that knowledge is built upon knowledge upon knowledge upon knowledge etc. It reminds me of a bit of Indian philosophy on the concept of knowledge and ignorance.

One is truly wise who thinks themselves ignorant, because ignorance implies that there is more to learn as one cannot know everything.

The issue is where does the knowledge start which has been the hot topic with educational experts for a very long time. Do you teach a child with the understanding that the knowledge is inherent within them, only to be called up upon demonstration and education, or are children blank slates tabula rasa and are free to be imprinted with knowledge in general.

So the primary question is whether or not knowledge is a-priori (before the senses) or a-posteriori (after the senses) which is basically the foundation of modern philosophy from the rationalists (Descartes and Spinoza) to the empiricists (Hume and Berkeley.)

[boagie]

Pongobongo,

" Those whom know the most must mourn the deepest orr the fatal truth, the tree of knowledge is not that of life." Byron.

What is the function of life but to live it the best way you can, however if one does not follow the passions of ones life, then life becomes drab, all of ones days monday mornings. Some times one must revolt from ones context, for with many it is not their life they are living, it is the life context dictates. To much education, at some point becomes pathological, a distraction from realizing the rapture of being alive, if your education turns you into this experience, which is possiable, then you have your cake and eat it to.