Talk:John Dewey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
To-do list for John Dewey: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. List the priority tasks needed to improve this article.

Article needs to discuss Dewey's crucial leadership role in the Secular Humanist movement - particularly his involvement with Humanist Manifest Number One.--DrWSO 00:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Edits, November 23, 2007

Respecting and admiring the amount of work alreay done on this article, I've shifted the sections for a more logical (and perhaps traditional) ordering. Nearly all of the work could fit under 'Dewey and Pragmatism,' of course, but 'Logic' and 'Aesthetics' seems particuarly relevent to me--not sure about 'On Education,' although that seems to belong there too. Also, it makes more sense to have the underpinnings for his philosophy of education before the description of that philosophy--though I can understand reasons to the contrary. Added a link and brief note for Art as Experience; cleaned up some of the syntax, and some of the graphical elements.--Dean Hunt (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ful.cleane, I do not envy you the task you have taken on. Your respect and admiration are, no doubt, appropriately diplomatic, but the article is in too many ways very distant from wikipedia's standards: Dewey seems almost absent from his own article; key words, phrases and concpets are missing or misinterpretted; the article seems to favor critique over explanation; in some cases a counter-point has been offered without bothering to state Dewey's position. I found the opening of the section on his educational theory quite illuminating: the writer of that section assumes that some sort of theory of the orign of thought in aestehtic/myth is something of an established fact (and, justifiably or not, the inevitable starting point for all educational theory), then smacks Dewey for not having told us that this was the case; and does so without ever telling us what Dewey actually has to say on the matter (apparently missing altogether the role that Dewey gives to aesthetics as part of critical-judment); perhaps most importantly this section fails to establish the fundamentals of Dewey's educational philosophy.
The absence of a competent explanation of Dewey's use of the word experience is rather symptomatic of the problem here. Experience as it is used in this article seems to be largely a passive noun: "the experience the child had," and not the dynamic verb that Dewey made it ("the child experiences the problem"); he uses experience in an attempt to link the physical with the mental worlds and, thus, do away with the mind/body duality (not to mention Cartesian dubiety, Humean skepticism, and German idealism -- someone here makes the comment that Dewey accepts that experience is subjective in Nature and Experience,-- this is a half-truth: Dewey always saw experience as subjective and objective (the two are not, for Dewey, mutually exclusive),-- he was clearly not a subjectivist in the post-structuralist sense, and forcing that on him is just bad scholarship).
I wish I had time to work on this page, but sadly I do not. If you will allow me to make a recommendation: I think the page could be helped considerably by refocusing the article using one or more of the major biographies (Dykhuizen, Ryan, Martin, or Westbrook would be my recommendations,-- they do not always agree, but they provide a common ground), then reintroduce the post-structuralist critiques in a separate section of criticism. Mddietz (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement on much of this--especially on the difficulty of getting around to making improvements. I'm hoping to find the time to write something on experience, particuarly in the interest of aesthetics, but for now I have to be content with relatively minor changes. The article remains unbalanced in its extended treatment--from an argumentative paper, perhaps--of his educational theory, met with the underappreciation of the methods and history that formed those views.--ful.cleane (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Art as Experience surely deserves more than what is provided here. I have heard anecdotal comments that it had a tremendous effect on American art when it first appeared, but I have seen little direct evidence of that impact. In any event, the current entry with its curious comment on post-colonial critique and its very odd reduction of Dewey's esthetic to something "embedded in (and inextricable from) the experiences of a local culture," reads like a sound bite for a general dismissal of non-post-structuralist esthetics. The bottomline is that it says nothing at all about what Dewey actually wrote. Dewey's pragmatism, or instrumentalism, if you would, is neither postivist nor post-modernist; it really deserves to be treated for what it is, not what it is not. Best of luck to you. Mddietz (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Should Susan Haack be included in the list of philosophers Dewey has influenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.110.174 (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I only just recently stumbled upon Susan Haack--as in just two days ago. What very little I have read suggests that Pierce is a stronger influence. Influence is a funny thing. I'm currently working on the influence that Matthew Arnold had on Dewey which I am finding is quite considerable, but does that particular influence need to be spelled out in a wikipedia article? I'm inclined to say no. I've ordered one of Haack's books and after reading it I may feel different, but for now I would wonder if it were necessary to mention Haack here. Mddietz (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Also it seems a bit strange that Jane Addams isn't even mentioned--especially for an article so concerned with education. Menand argues somewhat convincingly in The Metaphysical Club that she was critical to his emphasis on commensurability and reconciliation, rather than the whole traditional thesis/anti-thesis. I'll quote it in some length; it seems useful and perhaps someoneshould include it--I don't have the time or the mental energy to do the necessary synthesis right now; forgive the inevitable misspellings. (The context is a discussion of the Pullman strike of 1894.) --ful cleane (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
...Dewey was baffled. He asked Addams whether there weren't antagonisms between certain institutions--for example, capital and labor, or the church and democracy--which it made sense to take seriously. She said there never were: "The antagonism of institutions was always unreal; it was simply due to the injection of the personal attitude & reaction; & then instead of adding to the recognition of meaning, it delayed & distorted it." It was, Dewey confessed to Alice, "the most magnificent exhibition of intellectual & moral faith I ever saw. She converted me internally, but not really, I fear.... [W]hen you think that Miss Addams does not think this as a philosophy, but believes it in all her senses & muscles--Great God."
   By morning he had changed his mind. Addams, he decided, was right. "I can see that I have always been interpreting [he wrote "Hegelian," but crossed it out] dialectic wrong end up," he wrote to Alice, "--the unity as the reconciliation of opposites, instead of the opposites as the unity in its growth, and thus translated the physical tension into a moral thing." He saw, in other words, that the resistance the world puts up to our actions and desires is not the same as a genuine opposition of interests. "I don't know as I give the reality of this at all," he concluded, "--it seems so natural & commonplace now, but I never had anything take hold of me so." p. 313
In a life without much drama to it, this interaction with Addams has proven very popular; it suggests that we are seeing the moment when Dewey's thought process acheived a substantive and major inflection. It certainly belongs in here, but like you I just can't get to this right now. Mddietz (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Revised the section headings--the article can at least be more easily parsed now--and tossed in the Addams quotation wholesale. A few small edits. The new, so-called 'epistemology' section is hardly one, but better than what we had. Expect that this is as much as I can improve the article for quite some time. --ful cleane (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks for taking the time to do this. Mddietz (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dewey and Education

This is not a very neutral article; many people in the field of education value Dewey's work and there should be more about this, instead of the article leveling a de facto dismissal of his educational philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.42.142.1 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1927 response to 1929 article?

Question: How can Dewey have responded to Lippmann's "Phantom Public" in 1927 if Lippmann's article is cited as published in 1929? Somebody should clear up this dicrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.210.97 (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyright issue?

I noticed when looking for a source for the lincoln school failure thing, that some of this page appears to be plagurized. look at http://www.informationheadquarters.com/Philosophy/John_Dewey.shtml and then look at the second paragraph of the Dewey article here. Tpahl 07:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Added lincoln school bit back. Source on the web is at http://www.informationheadquarters.com/Philosophy/John_Dewey.shtml and can also be found in John Gatto Taylor's book titled 'underground history of education in america' or something very similar to that. Tpahl 07:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Ful.cleane, this is quite curious. The link provided here has a note at the bottom of the page that says: "This content from Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License". Now this an interesting chicken and egg. Which came first? If the material was taken from wikipedia, it cannot be used as justification for putting something into wikipedia. Dykhuizen mentions the Lincoln school only once and says that "Dewey followed its work closely." (pg. 137) Whether he had any direct involvement in it is not clear from Dykhuizen and a quick check of the other bios did not turn anything up. The Chicago Laboratory School is, no doubt, more relevant and it is not mentioned in this section (although it is mentioned in the bio section). I'm going to take out the mention of the Lincoln School. If someone wants to put it back in a reasonable citation is surely needed which this web page certainly is not. Mddietz (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of some tweaking, moving the mention of the fall of the lab school to a section on progressive education rather than educational philosophy, deleting the attribution of Foxfire to Dewey, as that seems (a) unimportant and (b) wrong, judging by the link provided in the article, deleting the Ayn Rand widget, as it seems more appropriate to, I don't know, a discussion of Ayn Rand, and deleting the lincoln school bit until we have some historical information about it...

Also killed the Alexander drop-in in the "pragmatism" section, since it wasn't clear how that related to Deweyan pragmatism. कुक्कुरोवाच 18:41, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

[edit] To-do

Obviously the reading list is incomplete; please add. Also, at some point I may get around to a more detailed list of some of the principle Deweyan concepts, particularly from Experience and Nature, but this may take a while... Kaleideion 06:16, 29 September 2002 (UTC)

We need a much more thorough analysis of Dewey's philosophy, particularly his early hegelian days, his mature social philosophy as expressed in works like D+E and Freedom and Culture, his complicated relationship to religion (from Early Works through to A Common Faith, Dewey's concept of science as an ideal, and perhaps a glossary of key Deweyan terms, many of which are often misunderstood. कुक्कुरोवाच 18:58, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "The Unknown Dewey"

                        -oOo-

For the Nth time, where N is getting to be a large number, some enemy of Voltaire has deleted the following link: The Unknown Dewey. That Dewey's defenders must resort to deleting his critics only points up the weakness of their position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.97.66 (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2004 (UTC)

                        -oOo-

^ I find it unclear why you feel that this link is of import here. It is true that it does deal directly with John Dewey, but it is not encyclopedic, as it cannot be said to be one of the chief or most important cricisms of Dewey. While the requirement to be encyclopedic is lesser in the discussion of the page, it is logical that you be required to justify your link as a discussion of the encyclopedic article, rather than a discussion of everything related to John Dewey. -- j1000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.47.226 (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2004 (UTC)

                        -oOo-

^ Whether it is encyclopedic or not, "The Unkown Dewey" has no business being linked from this page as it is completely inaccurate and uninformed. The author shows no knowledge of the History of Philosophy or Dewey's place in it, so the opinions presented have little or no value from the perspective of illuminating Dewey's life or work.

Were the points expressed as arguments engaging Dewey's thought, it could be considered as "criticism," but there are no arguments there, only rants by someone who is using their misreading of Dewey to attack the Alexander Technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.219.245 (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2004 (UTC)

                        -oOo-

The site referred to above contains many quotes from Dewey's books, some quite long. These quotes are exact.

The typical response to this is: "Well, he's quoted out of context." Yet for many of the quotes you may wonder if any context could make them other than contemptible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.197.137 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

Okay, could someone explain what exactly this debate is all about? I've been trying to ignore it and occasionally to make actual contributions to the article, but hey, maybe that's crazy talk.

Is it just someone who doesn't like Dewey trying to add a link to their private website summarizing their views? Becuase if so, that's completely inappopropriate on WP, even if the views were were informed and accurate (which, glancing very briefly at the site, I am inclined to doubt somewhat). And, indeed, it would be inappropriate if someone had a private site talking about how cool Dewey is, and for the same reasons.

Also, what the hell does it have to do with Voltaire? -- कुक्कुरोवाच 17:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Attributed as Voltaire's remarks to Helvétius, but in fact a later paraphrasing of his attitude. In any case, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand - the anon user has the perfect right to say whatever he likes about Dewey, but not here (or linked from here), not unless he can NPOV it. sjorford 23:14, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Ah, delightful! Thanks.कुक्कुरोवाच 18:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I see that Anon user 128.143.197.36 has restored the Unknown Dewey link, but has not offered any explanation for doing so, or responded to my concerns here. This seems problematic.कुक्कुरोवाच 20:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


The link is inaccurate to the point of laughability. It directly attributes beliefs and theories to Dewey that he often held the EXACT opposite. It is omitted for good reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.203.226 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To the UVA anon user

You out there? I'd still like to have a discussion of the link issue. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 17:59, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

The article lacks info on his contributions to psychology. I'll add it eventually if no one gets around to it before I do. 172 23:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ban 128.143.193.144?

Should the anon user from 128.143.193.144 be banned? He or she has repeatedly added the same disputed external link without discussion, and completely ignores any attempts to talk about the topic. It's happened more than 3 times without discussion, which as I understand things is grounds for banning. --Wclark 17:26, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

 ::shrug:: The "Unknown Dewey" guy? There was some discussion in the distant past, but the user has declined to engage in much discussion for a while now. I've just been reverting him, as I'm too lazy to figure out the procedure for getting higher authorities involved. Just so you know, he has several different IPs, all in Virginia, all used almost exclusively for this article. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 02:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and ban the "Unknown Dewey" guy if he returns, if that's alright with everyone here. 172 09:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just blocked 128.143.193.144. 172 20:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] just added to the page

I am a Wiki newbie and just have added to the article, here: an additional "secondary sources" cite, to Alan Ryan's very good book on Dewey. I am unsure of the degree of democracy, or not, which prevails on Wiki tho, so pls stomp hard if I've overstepped? It's a pretty interesting and I think useful addition... --Kessler 19:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) (found it...)

Well, welcome, and while I haven't read Ryan's book I've certainly encountered many references to it, and I have the impression it's respected. Basically, as long as a source isn't fraudulent, partisan (and presented as objectively factual--it's fine to include a partisan source if you identify it as a partisan source), or really, really stupid, you shouldn't worry about including it, and the degree of democracy around here (and around most wikis, I think) is quite high. 216.27.184.98 19:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Questions?

I have just finished reading "Experience and Education," and am scheduled to participate in a discussion group this Thursday. I am supposed to contribute three discussion questions, but I am a bit overwhelmed and not sure what the focus of the questions should be. Any suggestions or ideas would be greatly appreciated. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missperk (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 February 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TRANSACTION

In the first sentence of the introduction to KNOWING AND THE KNOWN1, Dewey announces the task at hand : "the attempt to fix a set of leading words capable of firm use in the discussion of "knowings" and "existings" in that specialist region of research called the theory of knowledge."2 Much of the book is spent in dense philosophical analyses of the words, terms, concepts,etc of the then current authoritative books, making the book difficult to paraphrase, summarize , or to interpret. Transaction is but one of the words selected, though a central one. Others are: behavior, characterization, event, fact, observation, naming, specification, etc.

The terminology problem in the fields of epistomology and logic is partially due, according to Dewey and Bentley, to unobserved, unexamined, undifferentiated, inefficient, and imprecise use of words, terms, concepts that reflect three historic levels of organization and presentation.In the order of chronological appearance, these are :

"*Self-Action: where things are viewed as acting under their own powers,dating from the time of Aristotle.

  • Interaction: where thing is balanced against thing in causal interconnection as described by Newton.
  • Transaction: where modern systems of descriptions and naming are employed to deal with aspects and phases of action without final attribution to "elements" or other presumptively detachable or independent "entities,","essences," or "realities," and without isolation of presumptively detachable "relations" from such detachable "elements"."3

The principle used in all analyses is that : All knowledge (known) and all efforts to acquire, to maintain, store, recall, and express knowledge(knowings) are acts of man. Language is the means man has to communicate knowledge or to participate in the use or acquisition of knowledge. As such any given word, sentence, postulation or proposition is always open to critical analysis, review, and revision by the inquiring behavior of men.

The best explication of the differences in these three levels of inquiry is Dewey's and Bentley's presentation, in unusually clear language, eight positions that they do not hold and which in no case should be read into their work. To quote directly at length:

"1.We employ no basic differentiation of subject vs object, any more than of soul vs body, of mind vs matter,or self vs nonself.

2.We introduce no knower to confront what is known as if in a different, or superior, realm of being or action; nor any known or knowable as of a different realm to stand over against the knower.

3.We tolerate no "entities" or "realities" of any kind intruding as if from behind or beyond the knowing-known events, with power to interfere, whether to distort or to correct.

4.We introduce no "faculties" or other operators (however disguised) of an orgnism's behaviors, but require for all investigation direct observation and usable reports of events without which, or without the effort to obtain which, all proposed procedure is to be rejected as profitless for the type of enterprise we here undertake.

5.In especial we recognize no names that pretend to be expressions of "inner" thoughts, any more than we recognize names that pretend to be compulsions exercised upon us by "outer" objects.

6.We reject the "no man's land" of words inmagined to lie between the organism and its environmental objects in the fashion of most current logics, and require, instead definite locations for all naming behaviors as organic-environmental transactions under observation.

7.We tolerate no finalities of meaning parading as "ultimate" truth or "absolute" knowledge, and give such purported finalities no recognition whatever under our postulation of natural system for man in the world.

8.To sum up: Since we are concerned with what is inquired into and is in process of knowing as cosmic event, we have no interest in any form of hypostatized underpinning. Any statement that is or can be made about a knower, self, mind, or subject--or about a known thing, an object,or a cosmos--must, so far as we are concerned, be made on the basis, and in terms, of aspects of event which inquiry, as itself a cosmic event, finds taking place."4

The authors then present a series of characterizations of Transaction indicating the wide range of considerations involved:

"Transaction is inquiry of a type in which existing descriptions of events are accepted only as tentative and preliminary, so that new descriptions of the aspects and phases of events,.......may freely be made at any and all stages of inquiry."5

"Transaction is inquiry which ranges under primary observation across all subjectmatters that present themselves, and proceeds with freedom toward the re-determination and re-naming of the objects comprised in the system."6

"Transaction is Fact such that no one of its constituents can be adequately specified as fact apart from the specification of other constituents of the full subject matter."7

"Transaction develops the widening phases of knowledge, the broadening of system within the limits of observation and report."8

"Transaction regards extension in time to be as indespensable as is extension in space...., so that "thing" is in action, and "action" is observable in things and actions are taken as marking provisional stages of subject matter to be established through further inquiry,"9

"Transaction assumes no pre-knowledge of either organism or environment alone as adequate,....., but requires their primary acceptance in common system, with full freedom reserved for their developing examination."10

"Transaction is the procedure which observes men talking and writing, with their word-behaviors and other representational activities connected with their thing-perceivings and manipulations, and which permits a full treatment, descriptive and functional, of the whole process inclusive of all its "contents", whether called "inners" or "outers" , in whatever way the advancing techiques of inquiry require."11

"Transactional Observation is the fruit of an insistence upon the right to proceed in freedom to select and view all subjectmatters in whatever way seems desirable under reasonable hypothesis, and regardless of ancient claims on behalf of either minds or material mechanisms, or any of the surrogates of either."12

In summary, all of human knowledge consists of actions and products of acts in which men and women participate with other human beings,other animal and plant life forms, organic and inorganic objects, in random,selected, and total environments. And men and women have, are, and will present these acts and products of action in language. Generic man, and specific men and women are well known to be vulnerable to error. Consequently, all knowledge (knowing and known ) whether commonsensical or scientific; past, present, or future; is subject to further inquiry, examination, review, and revision

          NOTES

1.Dewey,John,and Bentley,Arthur:KNOWING AND THE KNOWN, Beacon Press, Boston,1949, 334pp 2.ibid,pxi 3.ibid,p107 4.ibid,p120,121 5.ibid,p122 6.ibid,p122 7.ibid,p122 8,ibid,p122 9,ibid,p123 10,ibid,p123 11,ibid,p123 12,p124

68.220.10.208 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 68.220.10.208 04:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 68.220.10.208 19:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 68.220.10.208 04:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I misplaced my user name and password for the above user # and could not log in. I have re-registered as of now. F.RAFFERTY 00:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laboratory School

The Laboratory School is still in existence today, so some clarification is required as to what you mean when you say it failed within three years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.5.254.27 (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

As a current employee at the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, I think the phrase "failed within three years" is certainly inaccurate. A book written in the 1960s details the history of the Schools and Dewey's involvement; "The History of the Laboratory Schools" written by Ida B. DePencier, published by Quadrangle Books in 1967. Pending the availability of time, I'll read the appropriate passages again and edit this section of Dewey's entry, assuming there are no objections listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.162.60 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I can find no corroborating evidence for the statement that the Lab School failed within three years...nor for the statement that Dewey was forced to leave Chicago because it failed (see Menand)apart from other web encyclopedia listings that are more or less identical to this one. Indeed Dewey was director of the school for eight years, and as noted in the previous comment the school continues today. For a full account of the administrative disputes that led to Dewey's resignation from the University of Chicago, see Menand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.5.254.27 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln School

The Lincoln School was widely criticised for not teaching fundamentals, and, unlike the U of Chicago Lab school, may ultimately be judged a failure; however (according to one source)it lasted from 1916 to at least 1939, when (according to one web source)it merged with the Horace Mann School, and according to another source, lasted until the1940's so the description as short-lived is subjective and somewhat misleading. A more balanced, factually correct description of the history of the Lab School and Linoln School is required in this text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.5.254.27 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright, you sound like you almost know what you are talking about, so go ahead and fix this stuff!! if people disagree with your edits, they'll just change them back. --Heah (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Dewey Revolt"

In The Cat In The Hat there is a reference by that book's author to the Dewey revolt and how that led to the abandonment of phonics. Is this the right Dewey for a link? I still don't really understand the quote but it seems more likely than the current candidate, Thomas Dewey. Notinasnaid 15:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dewey transaction

The "transaction" section is too big and detailed. Should it be on its own page? Fplay 02:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As author, I don't know exactly what "own page" means.I wrote it to be part of the Dewey bio, and feel that it would be lost without the basic material on Dewey. Likewise, I think the Dewey article is somewhat lacking without some effort to provide some serious content on Transactions. As to size and detail, this is absolutely the minimum in both that I could make it understandable ( a little ). 208.63.244.195 18:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it has enormously excessive use of quotes. Wikipedia is not a place to write essays to prove things, but rather an encyclopedia to easily store accessible knowledge. I strongly disagree with 208.63.244.195, and agree that the section should be placed somewhere else. WoodenTaco 15:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was concerned about the frequent use of quotes, but ,as I indicated, it was impossible to paraphrase Dewey when he was trying to write with precise meanings. Also the quotes are still only a minuscule part of the book. I was not trying to prove anything with what may seem to be an essay. I was trying to make available an important part of Dewey's philosophy. Dewey literally spent his entire career trying to clarify these ideas and thought highly enough of this material to make it the centerpiece of his last book.

I am trying to be sensitive to your criticisms, but honestly don't understand how this addition to the article on Dewey harms the original article. I was responding to one of the last comments in the article indicating the need for an expansion on the subject of " transactions". There was no better way of elaborating than going to the source. Many well known encylopedias contain "essay" type articles. I was not aware that WP had to be simplistic as well as easily available and written. It's not that I am flatly against moving this piece, that may be the right thing to do, but I am mystified by the arguments. 68.220.36.16 21:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

OK!! So I checked out the name space of Fplay and realize that you come as a productive contributor and editor of WP. Please check out the following revision, and let me know if it is acceptable. 68.220.36.16 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] TRANSACTION

The terminology problem in the fields of epistomology and logic is partially due, according to Dewey and Bentley,1 to, inefficient, and imprecise use of words, and concepts that reflect three historic levels of organization and presentation.2 In the order of chronological appearance, these are :

  • Self-Action: Prescientific concepts regarded humans, animals, and things as possessing powers of their own which initiated or caused their actions.
  • Interaction: as described by Newton, where things, living and inorganic, are balanced against thing in a system of interaction, for example, the third law of motion that action and reaction are equal and opposite.
  • Transaction: where modern systems of descriptions and naming are employed to deal with multiple aspects and phases of action without any attribution to ultimate, final, or independent entities, essences, or realities.

A series of characterizations of Transactions indicate the wide range of considerations involved.3

  • Transaction is inquiry in which existing descriptions of events are accepted only as tentative and preliminary. New descriptions of the aspects and phases of events based on inquiry may be made at any time
  • Transaction is inquiry characterized by primary observation that may range across all subjectmatters that present themselves, and may proceed with freedom to re-determine and re-name the objects comprised in the system.
  • Transaction is Fact such that no one of the constituents can be adequately specified as apart from the specification of all the other constituents of the full subject matter.
  • Transaction develops and widens the phases of knowledge, and broadens the system within the limits of observation and report.
  • Transaction regards the extension in time to be comparable to the extension in space, so that “thing” is in action, and “action” is observable in things.
  • Transaction assumes no pre-knowledge of either organism or environment alone as adequate, but requires their primary acceptance in a common system.
  • Transaction is the procedure which observes men talking and writing, using language and other representational activities to present their perceptions and manipulations. This permits a full treatment, descriptive and functional, of the whole process inclusive of all its contents, and with the newer techiques of inquiry required.
  • Transactional Observation insists on the right to freely proceed to investigate any subjectmatter in whatever way seems appropriate, under reasonable hypothesis.

Illustration of differences between self-action, interaction, and transaction, as well as the different facets of transactional inquiry are provided by statements of positions that Dewey and Bentley definitely did not hold and which never should be read into their work. 4

  • 1. They do not use any basic differentiation of subject vs. object; of soul vs body; of mind vs matter; or self vs nonself.
  • 2.They do not support the introduction of any ultimate knower from a different or superior realm to account for what is known.
  • 3.Similarly , they do not tolerate “entities” or “realities” of any kind intruding as if from behind or beyond the knowing-known events, with power to interfere.
  • 4.They exclude the introduction of “faculties” or other “operators” of an orgnism’s behaviors, and require for all investigations the direct observation and contemporaneous report of findings and results.
  • 5.Especially, they recognize no names that are offered as expressions of “inner” thoughts, nor of names that reflect compulsions by outer objects.
  • 6.They reject imaginary words and terms said to lie between the organism and its environmental objects, and require the direct location and source for all observations relevant to the investigation.
  • 7.They tolerate no meanings offered as “ultimate” truth or “absolute” knowledge.
  • 8. Since they are concerned with what is inquired into, and the process of knowings, they have no interest in any underpinning. Any statement that is or can be made about a knower, self, mind, or subject, or about a known thing, an object,or a cosmos must be made on the basis of , and in the language applicable to the specific investigation.

In summary, all of human knowledge consists of actions and products of acts in which men and women participate with other human beings,with animals and plant organic and inorganic objects, in any environment.Men and women have, are, and will present their acts of knowing and known in language. Generic man, and specific men and women are known to be vulnerable to error. Consequently, all knowledge (knowing and known ) whether commonsensical or scientific; past, present, or future; is subject to further inquiry, examination, review, and revision.

NOTES: 1.John Dewey and Arthur Bentley, Knowing and the Known .Beacon Press, Boston,1949, 334pp. 2.ibid. p107-109 3.ibid. p121-139 4.ibid. p119-121 68.220.36.16 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops!! apparently I did something wrong when I copied the revision to the Edit Article page. The Notes are totally fouled up, and I don't understand how to set them right. Help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.237.229 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I converted them to a linked footnote system, so it's easier to use, and more aesthetic. See Wikipedia:Footnote. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch!!! 68.220.40.42 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

have now officially logged in and wish to identify myself as the author of TRANSACTIONS. Islandsage 21:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

Added a bibliography plus a link to the Center for Dewey Studies Qwerty18 17:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political views of Dewey

This article says extremely little of Dewey's political views and involvements, mostly notably on his involvement in the Dewey Commission which cleared Leon Trotsky of all charges made during the Moscow show trials. Would someone volunteer to help? --Pkchan 07:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition, his influence to Hu Shih is not mentioned in this article. --Pkchan 06:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an important point, about Dewey's impact: Hu Shih was greatly influenced by Dewey, in both his views on education and in his political pragmatism, and students of Hu Shih influenced many others using these same ideas -- would you like to compose something about this to add to the Dewey article? Also to the Hu Shih article? We would need quotes, I expect, or at least citations: I am not sure that I remember where exactly this Dewey influence comes up best, in Hu Shih's writing, but a cite to that would help substantiate things. Y.R. Chao may have written something, I think. --Kessler 18:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Dewey

In Dewey's book The School and Society, there is a choice quote, "The is just so much desirable knowledege, and there are just so many needed technical accomplishments in the world."

From my reading it seems like the educational system he advocates creating is predicated on the belief that we already have enough technology and don't need much or any more. And remember, he wrote this in 1900, so had we truly embraced Dewey's teachings there would be no antibiotics, TV, Internet, etc. Alex Krupp 03:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your characterization of Dewey and technology is nearly the reverse of the case. Check out The Public and its Problems for Dewey's nuanced views of technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.11.72 (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Quote

Hey guys, here is an interesting quote that I found that Dewey made, "The children who know how to think for themselves, spoil the hamony of the collective society that is coming, where everyone (would be) interdependent." One must wonder why a pioneer of our "beloved" education system would make such a socialist remark during the height of the Cold War and why such a communist remark would not get him jailed at the time. LordRevan 00:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about this quote, since I wasn't able to find it anywhere online- can you provide a source? --Overand 22:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"One must wonder why a pioneer of our "beloved" education system would make such a socialist remark during the height of the Cold War and why such a communist remark would not get him jailed at the time."

Perhaps because we didn't jail people just for their beliefs, only for truly treasonous acts or for abetting them? I know it is de rigeur to think of the late 1940's and early 1950's (McCarthy era) was a time when the U.S. government was locking everyone up, executing dissidents in secret, and engaged in a conspiracy to turn the USA into a fascist police state. Never happened. I am sure there were private citizen's who called for Dewey's arrest, but no one was ever arrested who wasn't actually engaged in passing secrets to foreign governments or refusing to answer HUAC's intruding questions (You get locked up for doing the same in court, by the way.). Many were called to account for their involvement, and that did have a chilling effect. There was far less partisanship than generally and deliberately misconstrued, with many Democrats participating in the stampede to prosecute.

Consider for a moment that someone has been arrested with evidence of passing technical military information or State Department memos to a sworn enemy of your country. This person went to school with you and participated in the same left-of-center political activities you did. Moreover, you had close personal ties with that person and frequent contacts long after college. Maybe you participated in some politically motivated high-jinx that seemed awfully funny at the time. Now, you work for a government agency handling occasionally sensitive information. How would you expect your government to act on discovering major flaws in its security with links to your past? At the very least, you can expect to be investigated and placed out of reach of sensitive information until exonerated. More likely, you'll take an early retirement from government to preclude further action and find more suitable employment.

Nor was government the sole venue for compromised security. Many private companies had close ties to government during and just after the war, with secrecy a clearly defined precondition for participation in government programs. The products they produced were the very stuff the communist were out to steal: information systems and computer technology, rockets and jets, ship and submarine guidance and detection, to name a few. The network of spying and passing of information did not follow a direct line from Kremlin to U.S. military bases, bureaucracy, or contractor. It followed lines of easiest and surest penetration. In many instances, that line traced through America's most liberal institutions: the universities, press and the arts; with many links going back to pre-war college days, sympathies, and friendships. Most of the links proved barren, but enough turned out compromised to demonstrate a deep involvement in spying, and a strong sympathy with communism's success. Often, the participants were true believers, self-deluded into thinking their activities were innocent of harm; that helping communism had nothing to do with destroying democracy. Others were openly distainful of the West, and delighted to bringing it down.

What really got the government in trouble was going after artists, actors, screenwriters, playwrites, and journalists. That was the point at which Congress lost control of itself. There were legitimate reasons to investigate "Hollywood" and journalists. Many of them were or had been openly communist before the war, including many with links to government or had fought in Spain's 'Red Brigades'. Congress' insistance on jailing any who refused to testify changed the dynamic to something of a witch hunt. The myth of McCarthyism suggests many refused to testify on principle; yet we know there were some with more to hide. The prevalence of those refusing on principle had the effect of providing an effective screen for those truly guilty and, the more the government persisted in getting to the truth, the worse its case looked in the eyes of the public. The celebrity and numbers of those jailed or blacklisted caused popular discontent with Congress and brought the investigations to a premature halt that left many questions unanswered (and undoubtedly protected yet to be discovered participants).

For many years after, the U.S. government was paralyzed to do anything to rid itself of actual spies in its midst, and it became a 1960's Hollywood joke they were hiding in plain sight (Hollywood's revenge!). Interestingly, blacklisting was not so much a government sponsored reaction (though it did approve). Rather, it was the Hollywood and Broadway producer's way of distancing themselves from anyone tagged a communist. Similarly, blacklisted journalists were more often the victims of their own publishers than targets of a government 'out to get them'. Government used subpeonas and jail time to get what it wanted. The producers and media owners used blacklists to cover their own backs. The government jailed those found to have aided in spying and those who resisted investigation. Hollywood dumped anyone and everyone with the least taint of communist affiliation, even before they became subjects of a government investigation. Hollywood, Broadway, and the press ought to get their fair share of blame for that. Instead, we have a mythology that says they were victims of the scare, right along with those blacklisted.

What most people fail to realize is the Soviet Union really was out to destroy us (made no secret of it), and had heavily penetrated every significant department of our government and industries. The hemorrage of information and security was so bad that even the President was suspected of communist sympathies; how else (so went the logic) explain the success of communist infiltration and their long activity at the highest levels? This does not excuse excesses of government to stop the flow, but it does explain the reaction was not simple hysteria nor an oppressive government. The U.S. in 1946 was a brand new superpower. We had never had to exert ourselves to protect information because, until then, we never had all that much other governments wanted from us. Before WWII, the U.S. was isolationist which kept us out of competition between socialists and conservatives then fighting over Europe. To the extent communism did invade us, we ignored it believing it made no difference; allowing moles to penetrate our system, greatly advanced to positions of sensitivity by the war-time expansion. In 1946, we were the only ones with atomic bomb technology; which made us the spying target of both enemies and allies. Keeping that information out of the hands of a hostile government was paramount, yet it was among the first compromised by government and industry employees sworn to protect it. The Soviets were the first to get their hands on it and develop their own bombs, despite coming from further behind than our other allies. That was possible only by the edge gained through spying. Senator McCarthy's call for investigation went only so far as to root out agents within the government and to close compromised channels to industry. His expedient of a fake list discredited his effort, but did not invalidate the need to clean house. Congress' reaction was to use the largest spotlight it could muster. That proved, in the end, to give moles ample opportunity to scurry into shadows cast by that same brilliant illumination.

McCarthy and Congress each mishandled the problem, yet the mistake was not in rooting out spies or in confronting communism. It was in applying an excess of a power granted for the object of good government to the securing of secrets. The American people were not ready for such an application, and generally regarded the keeping of secrets, itself, suspect. Today, our government keeps it secrets (though it still makes us suspicious), and refrains from going after spies too openly or in large numbers. The present situation with regard to terrorism is fraught with similar hazards and requires a deft application of our laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.239.17 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How we think

Found a link on it online: http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Dewey/Dewey_1910a/Dewey_1910_toc.html \ Would like to propose to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.82 (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dewey and Progressive Education

THe latest additions look like POV, in particular the following:

"Dewey's writings can be difficult to read, and his tendency to reuse commonplace words and phrases to express extremely complex reinterpretations of them makes him unusually susceptible to misunderstanding. So while he remains one of the great American public intellectuals [citation needed], his public often did not quite follow his line of thought, even when it thought it did. Many enthusiastically embraced what they thought was Deweyan teaching, but which in fact bore little or somewhat perverse resemblance to it."

"perverse resemblence" is definitely POV - as is the general ideas here - although I happen to agree with them.

It should be made clear that Dewey advocated neither progressive nor traditional education, but some type of mediation between the two (See "Experience and Education"). Thus, the type of education traditionalists complain about as "Deweyan" is not Deweyan, but progressive, and Dewey had some of the same complaints.

At any rate, food for thought. I'll try to write up something (with sources) on this issue - if any one else has ideas, go for it! Editor437 03:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

His works about education are actually quite readable, and although Dewey does reuse some concepts like "experience" and "intelligence" in a quirky sense, "extremely complex reinterpretations" is off the mark. Actually, his views of experience are closer to the common sense understanding of that word than e.g. the "sense atoms" or "bare sensation" some other philosophers take the word to mean. His philosophical work can be tough to read though - not per se difficult but not an appealing style of writing.
Secondly, Dewey did complain about other progressive education but _not_ because he himself was an intermediary between both traditions, rather because he expected more of progressive education than simply to "do everything traditional education does not". Stdbrouw 00:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dewey an atheist?

Charles Sanders Peirce and William James were christians. I have heard from his admirers and critic a like that Dewey was an atheist -I didn't see this mentioned in the article and don't know where he would have written this, though I am still working on his book, "A Common Faith", which might be the place. Anyone got any references on this? I kind of remember Bertrand Russell mentionining in his book, "A History of Western Philosophy" that Dewey did not become a Marxist because, already having given up one metaphysical commitment (presumably his religious upbrining, if he had one) for another, which Russell took to mean Marxism. Anyone? --Teetotaler 1 September, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I frankly think this is one of those non-questions that our age rather flatly and unimaginatively insists upon. We are certain that one must either believe in a personal god or else be an atheist -- we have lost all sense of nuance in our approach to religious beliefs. And atheism has become a rather cluttered term; I, frankly, wonder if it is still useful. I suggest taking Dewey for what he says in A Common Faith and "From Absoutism to Experimentalism" and not trying to force him into a category beyond that. By the way, I think "metaphysical committment" for Dewey can be read very differently than you have read it,-- it could as easily be taken as a disbelief in Descartes, as it could a disbelief in god. Mddietz 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Barnes Connection

When Dewey wrote Art as Experience, did he have any interest in promoting the ideas of Dr. Albert C. Barnes? Dr. Barnes had spent much money building his collection and, at the time, many people would have seen little value in the works that he bought. He collected many artists, like Cézanne, Matisse, and Henri Rousseau, who might have been seen as lacking the ability to draw. Dewey uncharacteristically placed a very high value on art in this book, which he had never done before. With Dewey's help, Barnes's collection of paintings was made to seem priceless.Lestrade 01:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Dewey was actually on Barnes' payroll (i.e. he worked for the Barnes Foundation as Director of Education or something like that). Barnes' The Art in Painting is dedicated to Dewey (all three edtions) -- first edition 1925, second edition 1928, third edition 1937. The second edition is the most relevant for Art as Experience (1934). In the preface to Art as Experience Dewey speaks of his indebtedness to Dr. Barnes and the Barnes Foundation. I find Barnes' influence extremely strong and very apparent when the books are set side-by-side. For example, Dewey's references to Constable's lectures seem to come from Barnes; much of Dewey's art history I believe is taken straight from Barnes (note the list of French Rococo painters with Lancret! listed first (pg. 128 in the Pedigree pbk -- if your reaction is "who is Lancret?" then you have a sense of why this is so odd), and this is but one example); one could go on citing influence after influence. Barnes had a "reconstructionist" approach to art,-- he spent long hours looking closely at his paintings and from this first hand experience he pieced together his own sense of the worth of individual paintings. He was a T.S. Eliot-style stock-broker of paintings: this one is up, this one is down; Dewey either did not notice this, or chose judiciously to ignore it. Barnes' reconstructionist approach, his forward placement of personal experience, and his distaste for "academics," I suspect, may have appealed to Dewey. Barnes is also not really quite that forward thinking,-- he missed a lot of what was really most avant-garde in his time (he treats Picasso, for example as a minor painter,-- this despite the fact that he bought from the Steins). Also, at this point Cezanne, Matisse and the impressionists were already receiving ample intellectual attention,-- they needed no help from either Barnes or Dewey. As for your statement: "With Dewey's help, Barnes's collection of paintings was made to seem priceless,"-- I have a friend who is always trying to feed me similar conspriacy theories around Dewey and Barnes. The relationship is interesting enough on its face without adding fanciful inventions. Afterall, Dewey did not create the reuptation of Cezanne, et al. Many of those who did enable those reputations to grow had never heard of either Dewey or Barnes. Mddietz 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dewey in Turkey

According to the wiki page on Mustafa Ataturk, Dewey was invited to Turkey as an advisor on education. It would seem that if this is true, it certainly warrants mention here.

Here's the citation: Wolf-Gazo, John Dewey in Turkey: An Educational Mission, pp. 15-42. Friday, 7, Sep. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.28.154 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Interestng. Thanks, 65.37.28.154. Did Dewey accept? What did he do? Have you read the article? What or who is Wolf-Gazo? Where would the mention fit? DCDuring 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous donor provided the incomplete cite from Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Via Amazon, I found it cited more completely in Martin's 2003 bio of Dewey. Ernest Wolf-Gazo, "John Dewey in Turkey: An Educational Mission", Journal of American Studies in Turkey (1996), 23, pp. 15-42. I may have missed issue details if it is not an annual. DCDuring 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Readability

This article (just mostly the intro and first paragraph) is very hard to understand-- penubag  10:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)