Talk:John Dewey/Archive 1

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)

"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 seem s 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)

Recent edits

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)

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)

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)

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)

Psychology

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)

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)

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)

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)

transactional

What is meant by 'The term, "transactional," may better describe his views.'? I'll browse a bit more for this term and if I find something relevant I'll write a stub. If not - can this sentence be deleted? — Sebastian 03:31, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by SebastianHelm (talk • contribs) was actually added by 152.5.254.27 (talk • contribs) - at 22:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to contribute to an article expanding on "transactional". A major source is the book "Knowing and The Known " by John Dewey and Arthur F. Bentley, The Beacon Press ,1949, 334pp. Much of this book is spent (lost!!) in dense philosophical analyses of the different terms used in epistemology and logic, a difficult book for most of us to read. Transaction is only one of those terms (e.g. naming, fact, subject,object, specification, definition, etc.) But for the behavioral scientist ( or anyone else for that matter ) this book and it's contents is a fundamental, vital source of ideas, and an important tool in understanding and managing the never ending polemics about the Knowing and the Known .

The foundation is laid to establish that : All knowledge and all efforts to acquire, to maintain, store, recall, and express knowledge ( knowings ) are products of the behavior of human beings. ( generic man )Language ( in its broadest possible sense ) is the means man has to communicate knowledge or to participate in the use or acquisition of knowledge. This leads to the exploration of another term in the book," definition".Rafferty 11/1/05

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.10.208 (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

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) 22:46, 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Bibliography

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

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)

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)

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)

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." [apparently not from Dewey -- mdd] 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)

I know this is a bit late, but I have tested this quotation using the complete Dewey on-line data base (your university library must be a subscriber for you to be able to access it, sorry). However, this quotation does not come up. It would seem to be completley made up. It does not even conform to Dewey's writing style. Thought it might be worth stating that here so that no one walks off with this and uses it somewhere else. Mddietz (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

re

Interesting Quote

"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)

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)

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)

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 , 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)

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)

Okay, anyone got a NPOV on this one, as Mddietz doesn't? And a correction to my earlier POV entry which began this section which states that Peirce was a Christian -he said he liked Buddhism more than that "miracle-monger", he wrote in a letter to William James. Will go to the Peirce article to see if that is up to date. Louis Menand's book, The Metaphysical Club lists Dewey's wife as an atheist and suggests that she 'converted' him, if I remember correctly. Will be back with that reference because I havn't yet exhausted the Dewey ouvre or met anyone who has, to see if there is an encyclopedic fact to the matter or if we have to settle for more POV. --Teetotaler 10 October, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are right my comment is more than a little POV. Please accept my apology if my original response to you came across as a little too heavy-handed. My personal POV, as you rightly point out, is not altogether relevant. I can understand wanting to put Dewey into one of these categories -- atheist, agnostic, some form of deist or naturist, humanist, etc., but I don't think any of these quite fit Dewey. Again, I would say all we really have to go on is his statements in "A Common Faith,"-- and these seem to move him away from an unequivocal attribution as an atheist. Within the bounds of "A Common Faith" and Dewey's involvement with the humanist movement, I think it might be possible to call him a humanist, but not a "secular humanist" (see my comments above on that issue and the comments I have drawn from the editorial matter of the Collected Works of Dewey.) By the way, I recall the same passage from Menand and found it, as you have, a little vague, perhaps intentionally so. Martin suggests that Dewey was reacting against his mother constantly asking "Are you alright with Jesus?" but where that phrase comes from, I do not know. I have looked for it in the letters using the online searchable database (unfortunately you have to belong to an instituion that prescribes to the database (correspondence and the complete works); I can actually do a few searches if you had some questions you wanted to search out. Martin is, to my taste, very Freduian and much too soap-operaish. While Menand, and if I remember rightly Ryan, suggest that his movement away from formal Christian belief happened later and more slowly and more as a result of his wife's influence. Stanley Hook's book might serve as something of a primary source on this issue, but I have not read it so I do not know what he says on the issue. Mddietz (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done a search in the Dewey Database for "atheist" and found the following:

From an essay on Thomas Jefferson:

Jefferson was a sincere theist. Although his rejection of supernaturalism and of the authority of churches and their creeds caused him to be denounced as an atheist, he was convinced, beyond any peradventure, on natural and rational grounds of the existence of a divine righteous Creator who manifested his purposes in the structure of the world, especially in that of society and the human conscience.

a similar comment on Spinoza in "A Common Faith" and on Hobbes in "The Motivation of Hobbes Political Philosophy"

A spirited discussion on Russell, atheism and the court censorship.

This rather intriguing early piece on H. G. Wells:

Between benevolent atheists and those "who have found God" there is, Mr. Wells says, this difference: "The benevolent atheist stands alone upon his own good will, without a reference, without a standard, trusting to his own impulse to goodness, relying upon his own moral strength. . . . He has not really given himself or got away from himself. He has no one to whom he can give himself. His exaltation is self-centered, is priggishness. . . . His devotion is only the good will in himself," etc., etc. In short the only escape, for Mr. Wells, from an unrelieved egoism is recourse to a big Alter Ego upon whom is bestowed the name of God. Then there came to my mind that psychological mechanism to which has been given the name of "projection." When an individual finds a conflict in himself which is offensive and with which he cannot successfully cope directly, he "projects" it into or upon another personality, and then finds rest. Uneasy and tortured egoism, finding no rest for itself in itself, creates a huge Ego which, although finite and although not a creator of worlds, is still huge enough to be our King, Leader and Helper.

And then I thought of the humbleminded in all ages and places who live in the sense of the infinite ties, a few perceived but most of them obscure, which bind them to their fellows, to the soil, to the air and to the light of day, and whose strength to suffer and to enjoy is renewed daily by contact and by intercourse. I then seemed better able to understand both that egoism which brings war into the world, and that egoism which revels in masking a balked egoism by setting it forth in a journalistic declaration of the God of the modern mind. In the light of the world's catastrophe perhaps such is the religious creed of contemporary man.[Page mw.10.313-314]

And one or two others I don't have time to summarize just now, but that do not look at first glance to be quite the smoking gun we are looking for. Hope this helps. Mddietz (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dewey was not a theist in that he did not believe any being was omnipotent (Experience and Nature, LW1.43); he did not believe nature had a creator, or a beginning (Experience and Nature, LW1.83). He was a religious person though, in that he had undergone a religious "adjustment" -- this had united his self and the universe, partly through imagination, in a way not warranted by the strict standards of scientific inquiry. (Common Faith, Citation needed) Dewey used religious language in talking about education, intelligence, and democracy. Apragmatist (talk) May 17, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC).

This is a difficult subject that Dewey, intentionally I think, made even more difficult by addressing it repeatedly and in many different ways. What are we to make, for example, of this comment from "A Common Faith"?

One reason why personally I think it fitting to use the word "God" to denote that uniting of the ideal and actual [note how much less personal this is than "uniting of the self and the universe"] which has been spoken of, lies in the fact that aggressive atheism seems to me to have something in common with traditional supernaturalism. I do not mean merely that the former is mainly so negative that it fails to give positive direction to thought, though that fact is pertinent. What I have in mind especially is the exclusive preoccupation of both militant atheism and supernaturalism with man in isolation. Dewey: Page lw.9.36

As difficult as it may be to admit this in an encyclopedia, which by its nature holds categorization of knowledge as essential, we may need to face the fact that the most we can say of Dewey is that he was religious [as you have pointed out, see the opening pages of A Common Faith]; that he spurned association with atheism [citation above], secular humanism and that humanism which attempts to deify humanity [see the discussion at the top of the discussion page]; that he moved away from traditional Christian beliefs (at least, in so much as those beliefs were attendant upon supernaturalism) [see from Absolutism to Experimentalism]; that he saw a connection between his beliefs and those of Spinozan theists (like Arnold) [he wrote a paper on Spinoza where he rejects Spinoza on the grounds that he holds too much to a divine entity, but he ends up taking from Spinoza much of what Arnold took from him; he used Arnold throughout A Common Faith but particularly by way of Arnold's definition of God, "that not ourselves which makes for righteousness" objecting primarily to the narrowness of "righteousness"]; and that he never entirely divorced himself from the idea of god even as he forsook the supernatural associations that tend to cluster around the idea of god [again the citation just above]. The result is something subtle and fascinating,-- it is not theism, atheism or agnosticism which are all too much concerned with supernatural issues to satisfy Dewey (unless one takes theist, as Dewey often did, to mean simply one who is religious); it is a very moral religious belief, one in which morality is central, although for Dewey we must understand this as a thoroughly reconstructed morality; it is, in a way, a kind of philosophical religion, but not so philosophical that it cannot deal with issues of conduct and daily life. Mddietz (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Readability

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

This issue has been fixed now, thanks! -- penubag  (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Where does this fit in?

I just came across the following from the American Institute of Physics [[1]] monographic on Albert Einstein:

1935 [Einstein, together with] John Dewey and Alvin Johnson, becomes member of the United States section of the International League for Academic Freedom.

Any suggestions on where/how to include it in the article? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Technopat, wish I could help you, but this article is in such bad shape, I don't know where this would go. Dewey was, as I understand it, a major player in formulating the current coneption of academic freedom, so that the story rather goes a bit beyond what you have found here. Martin has something on this in his biography if I remember rightly. But what should be done with this given the current mess this article is in, I could not tell you. Mddietz (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Mddietz. I take your point, and though I do periodically go through despondent phases here at Wikipedia, I can assure you that I have seen far worse articles worked over almost from scratch and ending up verging on the excellent. Oh, that there were more than 24 hours in a day and more than 7 days a week... :) Regards, --Technopat (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Technopat, go for it. Right now I am in the middle of some other work that just does not allow me much time to spare for wikipedia, but I'm happy to visit and provide some cheering on from the sidelines. This is long overdue. Thank you for doing this. Regards, Mark Mddietz (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just came across The Bertrand Russell Case (1940) which more or less fits into the context of the International League for Academic Freedom. So some future subsection mentioning his activism? --Technopat (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dewey's social activism is significant and perhaps even worth a separate section. Fair disclosure: I recently co-wrote a chapter on Dewey's social activism, Addressing Social Issues in the Classroom and Beyond ISBN: 978-1-59311-566-1, so I may be a little biased on this issue. Nonetheless, Dewey was no slouch when it came to social activism: he was involved in the organzation that eventually became the NAACP, opposed a communist take over of the New York Teacher's Union (can you imagine that?), marched for women's rights and many, many other causes, headed up the famous Trotsky Commission, etc. His relationship with Russell was intersting, but complex. Mddietz (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted self-reference

The following self-referenced external link goes out:

Dewey also profoundly affected Ken and Susan Webb in founding Farm and Wilderness Camps in Plymouth, Vermont.

--Technopat (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This was not a self-reference

The "Dewey also profoundly affected Ken and Susan Webb in founding Farm and Wilderness Camps in Plymouth, Vermont" statement was made by me (Lakenight). I am not affiliated with these camps, but I am knowledgable about them. These camps were started in the 1930s, experimented with alternative schools on their property and collectively have a large summer population with distinguished well known public figures as alumnae/past campers. The camps are also from Vermont and the founders knew Dewey personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakenight (talk • contribs) 05:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Lakenight - I referred to the self-reference 'cos it's their own website that gives that information. If it can be referenced by a third party, as per Wikipedia notability guidelines, please return it to the article. I have no doubt you are right, but it needs referencing (I, too, am knowledgeable about many some a couple of things that I haven't been able to include on Wikipedia (yet) for lack of adequate references). By the way, it was removed in the context of a general clean-up of this article, so please take it in that context. --Technopat (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add a second issue to this discussion. Is this piece of information of sufficient significance to a general understanding of Dewey that it needs to be in this article? A very large number of schools claim some influence from Dewey, many of which were contemporary with Dewey. Dewey himself sanctioned very few of these, and was not particularly happy with some of those that did claim to derive their approach from his teachings. If he made any comment on this particular effort, pro or con, it may be worth a mention. If not, the information may be more relevant in some other article. Mddietz (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted non-encyclopedic content

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I have therefore deleted the following:

Others who would rather remain unnamed prefer to keep Dewey's philosophy separate from the Alexander Technique and would go so far as to keep quiet about Dewey and the Technique believing that neither has anything to do with the other. [2]

As far as I'm concerned it belongs here on the talk page, where it can be discussed further if needs be, but not in the article itself. --Technopat (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Mddietz (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Relative importance of Alexander Technique

Was Dewey's involvement in the above sufficiently relevant to warrant a whole subsection or can it be incorporated elsewhere? --Technopat (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have been added by someone who has a site devoted to this issue. The site is very strongly critical of Dewey. Dewey's relationship with Alexander is interesting and perhaps worth a mention in the Life, but I cannot see it warranting the amount of attention it is given here. The recent biographies I have read give it much less play than this. Mddietz (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Have deleted the following 'cos on further thought, don't/can't see what is referred to:

If Dewey had such an extensive influence in the field of education in the Western World, why was he so disregarded on such a fundamental proposition? Aldous Huxley suggests it was because they lacked the kinesthetic integrity themselves to understand what he was talking about.

--Technopat (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

There is so much very relevant criticism of Dewey that it is hard to understand how this very odd bit on Dewey and the rift between religion and science got here. It is, to my mind, very minor, noting as it does (quite correctly) that the animus between science and religion could hardly be credited to Dewey. A major study on Dewey and religion came out late last century by a gentleman named Rockefeller, but I don't recall the title.

In any event, this section as it stands is rather odd. Dewey's notable critics include Randolph Bourne, Walter Lippmann, and many others in his lifetime. He was roundly critiqued on his war stances in both WWI and WWII. He was always at the forefront of the battle between traditional and progressive education and today is often most highly criticized for "what he did to our schools," although it is not apparent that he really did anything directly to the schools, nor that he fully approved of much of what passed for progressivism. He was strongly critiqued by American communists because he took a stand against Stalinism and had philosophical differences with Marx. He is held up as the epitome of liberalism by many conservative pundits today (see The Closing of the American Mind). While quite a few on the left find him too conservative by today's post-modern standards. He has even been criticized for not writing more directly against racism. Religion has always had a very small piece in this critique. Mddietz (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Mddietz, With a bit of tweaking, and a couple of strategically-placed references, your paragraph above would make a great Criticism subsection itself, or at least as part of an overview at the top of the article. I can't see anything in what you state that could be considered original research and/or polemic enough for it not to be included. --Technopat (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it might do as a stop gap. Some adjectives will need to come out. If you want to have a go at it, I'm fine with that. Mddietz (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, here goes... --Technopat (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral reader (neither for nor against Dewey) I found this section strongly biased. You may not have intended it this way but the gist of what is written can be summarized as "criticisms of Dewey are unfounded". Perhaps it would be best to remove the section until a suitable product can be written. Thanks -do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

do, you are probably right. This section really needs much more. The extremist criticisms are, I think, a little too easy to dismiss. The criticisms of his war stances are certainly not so easy to dismiss. He seemed somehow to be in the opposite corner from the rest of the intellectual world on two pretty important wars. He supported the first world war and opposed the second, and his reasoning was not really that sound. His battle with Randolph Bourne (not mentioned here) was a bit of an embarassment.

Criticisms of his writing style contian many valid points. His inability to be practical in his school criticism (which is the other side of the did-he-really-do-anything-to-the-schools issue) is a long standing criticism that is not at all without merit. I thought that was implicit in what we wrote, but I suspect it is not. Mddietz (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Order of importance of subsections

Apart from the actual content of each, which is a long-term project, not too sure about the following order:

• 1 Life and works
• 2 On Democracy
• 3 Pragmatism and Instrumentalism
  • 3.1 Epistemology
  • 3.2 Logic and Method
  • 3.3 Aesthetics
• 4 On Education
• 5 On Journalism
• 6 Social activism
• 7 Other interests
  • 7.1 The Alexander Technique
• 8 Criticism

In particular, 1. Life and works needs serious sorting. Could 3. P&I go after On Journalism? I realise that JD was first and foremost a philosopher, but the idea of an encyclopedic article is to make it readable and understandable for people who know nothing of the subject. An indepth, dedicated article on P&I for experts will surely be created over time... Feedback? --Technopat (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Although I vote for reomoving the Alaexander Technique completely and making it a mention in the Life. Also Dewey spent a number of years writing as a kind of "journalist" but his writings on Journalism are not that distinctive, at least so far as I am aware. His thoughts on religion may be worth a comment or two in other interests section. I will work up something on education a little later when I have a little more time. 3 may need to come before 2 as his thoughts on democracy flow out of pragmatism. Mddietz (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. Re. your "his thoughts on democracy flow out of pragmatism", I suspected that would be the answer... sigh! Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This phrase is a little suspect. "He is also known as the father of functional psychology..." I've never heard Dewey's relationship to functional psychology stated this way before, or if I have it went right past me. The citation at the end of the sentences appears to be for the statement in the second half of the sentence. "...one of the founders..." might do for now; it is at least consistent with the wiki article linked here. Mddietz (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is looking excellent. Great work. I have gone in and made one small edit. Also I removed the following which is misleading:

Thus, Dewey's idea of schools, contrary to the idea of the existing college preparatory schools of his day, was to promote the social integration of different classes which would lead to their mutual understanding, respect and sympathies.

Dewey just does not hit the class issue this hard in his discussion of either democracy or education. The emphasis here is just wrong. Mddietz (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted reference in work of fiction (sorry! my mistake --Technopat (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

Have deleted, copied & pasted (though not necessarily in that order) here for further action the following from the article:

Louis Menand argues in The Metaphysical Club that Jane Addams was critical to Dewey's emphasis on commensurability and reconciliation, without acknowledging that Dewey found these ideas in Hegel. Considering how otherwise uneventful Dewey's life was, it is worth quoting the passage in full. (The context is a discussion of the Pullman strike of 1894.):

...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."

Not quite sure what to do with it, except possibly merge it into the book's article page itself - if it isn't already lifted from there - but I can't see how it fits under the John Dewey wikipedia article. --Technopat (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Technopat, I ended the chapter I wrote on Dewey's political activism with this choice quote. (Dewey scholars often will know this passage almost by heart it is so common.) But it is too much for this article. I wonder if a summary of it might fit into the section on his Life. It occurred some time after Dewey's move to University of Chicago. Mddietz (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Mddietz, Re. your "this choice quote", not being a Dewey scholar, I'm not sure exactly which of the above you refer to and/or how much is from the original quote and how much is artistic license. I'm sure I'll catch up with it one day, but in the meantime... Regards, --Technopat (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Menand is not taking much license here. There were two letters: the first to his wife, Alice, who was out of town at the time. This is the first paragraph. The second is to Jane Addams. A much shorter letter. Although I think the very last sentence in the second paragraph comes from the Alice letter. Mddietz (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the actual text: … And then she went on to say that she had always believed & still believed that antagonism was not only … useless and harmful, but entirely unnecessary; that it lay never in the objective differences, which would always grow into unity if left alone, but from a person's mixing in his own personal reactions--the extra emphasis he gave the truth, the enjoyment he took in doing a thing because it was unpalatable to others, or the feeling that one must show his own colors, not be a moral coward, … That historically … only evil had come from antagonisms--she kept asking me what I tho't, & I agreed up to this point, but then … after the manner of fools, I dissented; then she went … on, that if Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple that accounted for the apparent difference between the [later] years of his … ministry & the earlier, & for much of the falsity in [Christianity] since; if he did it, he lost his faith & reacted; that we freed the slaves by war & had now to free them … again individually, & pay the costs of the war & reckon with the added bitterness of the Southerner beside &c &c. I asked her if she didn't think that besides the personal antagonisms, there was that of ideas & institutions, as [Christianity] & Judaism, & Labor & Capital, the Church & Democracy now & that a realization of that antagonism was necessary to an appreciation of the truth, & to a consciousness of growth, & she said no. 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. If I could tell you the absolutely commonplace & unemotional way in which she said all these things, it would give some better idea of the most magnificent exhibition of intellectual & moral faith I ever saw. She converted me internally, but not really, I fear. At least I can't [see] what all this conflict & warring of history means if it's [perfectly] meaningless; my pride of intellect, I suppose it is, revolts at thinking its all merely negatively, & has no functional value. But I can also see, or rather dream, that maybe its a mere illusion because we put ourselves in a wrong position & thus introduce antagonism where its all one; & that its sole function is to warn … us never to think division. But when you think that Miss Addams does not think this as a philosophy, but believes it in all her senses & muscles--great God. … I guess I'll have to give it [all] up & start over again. I suppose that's the subjective nature of sin; the only [reality] is unity, but we assume there is antagonism & then it all goes wrong. I can [sense] that I have always been interpreting the Hegelian dialectic wrong end up--the unity as the reconciliation of opposites, instead of the opposites as the unity in its growth, and thus translated physical tension into a moral thing-- As a sample of Miss Addam's intellect, when I spoke of the place tension held in … all natural forces & in growth, she said 'Of course, there's the stress of action, but that's an entirely different thing.' I don't know as I give her the reality of this at all--it seems so natural & commonplace now, but I never had anything take hold of me so; & … at the time it didn't impress me as anything wonderful; it was only the next day it began to dawn on me (Letter, John Dewey to Alice Dewey, in Hickman and others, 2005, 1894.10.10 (00206); also in Martin, 2002, pgs. 165-68).

Dear Miss Addams--

I wish to take back what I said the other night. Not only is actual antagonizing bad, but the assumption that there is or may be antagonism is bad--… in fact, the real first antagonism always come back to the assumption.

I'm glad I found this out before I began to talk on social psychology as otherwise I fear I should have made a mess of it.

This is rather a suspiciously sudden conversion, but then it's only a beginning[.]

Gratefully yours, | John Dewey

(P.S. Metaphysical Club is not fiction, also it just occurred to me that I may have been the one who added that section from Menand. In any event, do what you think best.)Mddietz (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Mddietz, No offence meant and hope none taken! I based my fiction "slur" on the difference 'tween the two references here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metaphysical_Club and assumed that the book was a fictional account of the events surrounding same. As for doing what I deem best :) , my main aim is to reach a rock bottom minimum, but comprehensive, encyclopedia entry which cannot be considered polemic even by the most .... (fill in the blank). It is then for you Dewey scholars to indulge in deeper analysis and criticism (possibly on dedicated special articles branching out from the main Dewey article (which is what I've been doing with the publications) and/or to use the talk page here to work out a consensus version of each additional item). So if you don't mind, I'd like to keep that/your addition out of it, albeit temporarily. It's here on the talk page for future reference/use. By the way, don't you think that that "I guess I'll have to give it [all] up & start over again." after the "My God!" makes a big difference to the whole meaning of the paragraph? Don't forget that in meatball surgery, even the surgeons risk injury...! Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. Have now reached the point in my homework where I see the relevance of the above exchange as excerpted from Menand. However, I still think that it is only of interest to scholars of Dewey et al - and as you point out, it's a passage they probably all know by heart - as opposed to an encyclopedic entry. Likewise, the fact that it is such a long copy & paste makes the copyright angle on it a bit worrying... can anyone come up with a summarised version of it? Back to my homework. --Technopat (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout this:

Louis Menand argues in The Metaphysical Club that Jane Addams had been critical of Dewey's emphasis on commensurability and reconciliation antagonism in the context of a discussion of the Pullman strike of 1894, without acknowledging that Dewey found these ideas in Hegel. In a later letter to his wife, he Dewey confessed that [it was] Addams' argument was "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. [… I guess I'll have to give it [all] up & start over again.]" He went on to add, "I can see that I have always been interpreting dialectic wrong end up, 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." and "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."

In a letter to Addams herself, Dewey wrote, clearly influenced by his conversation with her: "Not only is actual antagonizing bad, but the assumption that there is or may be antagonism is bad-- in fact, the real first antagonism always comes back to the assumption."

Does it miss out anything essential? Feedback, please. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes in the text above. The words "commensurability" and "reconciliation" are not Dewey's and, I think, are better expressed in the simpler, more direct "antagonism." We don't need to be quite so careful of the text as your brackets would suggest. I think this adds a nice little bit of color to the Life section, but I don't think it is absolutely essential. Mddietz (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your corrections - I've plonked it back. --Technopat (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted text

Have deleted the following unreferenced text. Not sure how it fits or if mention, duly referenced, should be made elsewhere:

Borrowing two thousand dollars from his aunt, he was able to enter graduate school in philosophy. His unpublished and now lost dissertation was titled "The Psychology of Kant" and he made a special study of Hegel's Absolute idealism.

--Technopat (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of these are correct. Like the communist take over of the New York City's Teacher's Union, these can all be found in Martin and most other biographies. The communist take over of the union has such a hysterical phrasing to it that it may be best just to say he worked closely with the NY Teacher's Union. I have always found it amusing that Dewey himself was concerned over something like this and did, himself, see it in these terms, i.e. as a communist take over of the union. The $2000 from his aunt is probably not that important. The second part of that sentence -- re: his dissertation and study of Hegel does, I think, provided a nice grounding in the nature of his early studies. Mddietz (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't doubt the truth of the statements, but there's a citation template slapped on there & until someone has time to sort it out, maybe it's better here on the talk page. Will reincorporate the 2nd part. --Technopat (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wish I had my copy of Martin's bio at hand because I could give you a cite in a couple of minutes, but its packed up in a box. Maybe in another couple of months I can dig it out, but right now I just don't have the time to get to it. Mddietz (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted section on schools

Greetings All, Thought it time to be bold, and while I think it's highly commendable that so many schools purport to having adopted Dewey's ideas, I reckon that for the moment, and at least until the article gets itself sorted out a bit, that the list takes up an awful lot of space and should be tucked away here at the talk page, where it can be referred to if necessary and improved upon - possibly with a view to creating a new article entitled something along the lines of "List of schools based on the Deweyean model", which is why I haven't been too bold and simply deleted it. Of course, references would be needed... Feedback anyone? Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Technopat, I have long felt the same way on this particular section. Dewey, of course, did create and run his own school, The Laboratory School, at the University of Chicago. He and his daughter did a study of schools in which they remarked upon the school's various "progressive" approaches to education, but it is hard to imagine what is meant if a school today says it is based upon Dewey. This section has always seemed to me to need something more substantial. I think your action here is a wise one, and the possibility of a separate article might be the best answer. Mddietz (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Mddietz. I was thinking of only leaving in the mention of the school he directly founded (?) but as this is already mentioned early on in the article, it would be repetitive - although I'd like to see (at a later stage) more info on his actual involvement. Whether the list stays or leaves the nest, any item on it has to conform to Wikipedia criteria on notability and independent references... --Technopat (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the list as is:

List of Institutions based on the Deweyean model

California

• The Children's Community School - A progressive elementary school in Los Angeles, California
• Foundations School Community - A progressive elementary and middle school in Los Angeles, California
• Oakwood School - A progressive junior high to high school in North Hollywood, California
• The Peninsula School - A Progressive elementary school in Menlo Park, California
• Sequoyah School - A child-centered/progressive school for 5 to 14 year olds in Pasadena, California
• Windrush School - A progressive Kindergarten to Eighth Grade School in El Cerrito, California

Illinois

• The Children's School of Oak Park - A Progressive Education elementary school in Oak Park, Illinois
• Francis W. Parker School of Chicago -Francis W. Parker School (Chicago) is a kindergarten through 12th grade Chicago independent school founded in 1901 by Dewey's fellow progressivist, Colonel Francis Wayland Parker.
• University of Chicago Laboratory Schools - Nursery-12th grade school founded by Dewey in 1896 on his principles of hands-on learning and exploration

Masachusetts

• Beaver Country Day School - A progressive elementary through high school in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, founded in 1920; now grades 6 through 12

Maryland

• The Park School of Baltimore - A Progressive school for grades K-12 in Pikesville, Maryland, founded in 1912.

New York

• The City and Country School - A progressive elementary school in New York, New York
• Friends World College (Global College) - An international, experiential 'learning community' based on Dewey concepts, now part of Long Island University.
• John Dewey High School - A progressive high school in Brooklyn, New York completely founded on Dewey's ideology.
• The Little Red Schoolhouse and Elisabeth Irwin High School - A progressive elementary school in New York, New York
• The Manhattan Country School - A progressive elementary school in New York, New York

Vermont

• Goddard College - A progressive college in Plainfield, VT founded on the ideals and work of John Dewey.

Washington

• The Little School - A progressive school for ages 3-12 in Bellevue, Washington, founded in 1959

Wisconsin

• Wingra School - A progressive school for 5 to 14 year olds in Madison, Wisconsin

[Technopat 11:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)]

Deleted Mockingbird ref.

Have deleted the following reference:

• Lee, Harper To Kill a Mockingbird. Jem confuses the Dewey Education system with the decimal system.

from the subsection Works about Dewey, as I reckon it's better suited to the article on the book itself. --Technopat (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted duplicated text

Greetings Mddietz - have just deleted my version of his Humanism and substituted it for your version, but pasted it in the subsection I'd posted mine in 'cos I think it fits better there. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. I'm not a good detail person, so I did not notice you already had it in there. Mddietz (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding some Biography to his Life

Hey everyone, I'd love to add some interesting tid-bits about Dewey's life but the "Life" part of "Life and works" seems to peter out at 1905 before transitioning to the "works" part. Specifically, I was thinking a mention of Dewey's lecture series from 1919 to 1921 in Japan and China would be interesting, especially since he arrived in China three days before the May 4th Incident, and was quite influential in intellectual circles and progressive education in China during the time, including his profound influence on Hu Shi and the New Culture Movement. Some mention of Dewey and China, at the very least, I think is necessary.

Some works that cover this topic:

Dewey in China

• John Dewey, Lectures in China, 1919-1920, Taipei: Chinese Culture University Press, 1985.
• Jerome B Grieder, Hu Shih and the Chinese Renaissance: Liberalism in the Chinese Revolution 1917-1937, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.
• Barry Keenan. The Dewey Experiment in China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.
• Hu Shih. "John Dewey in China." Philosophy and Culture East and West. Honolulu: Univesrity of Hawaii Press, 1962. 762-769.
• John E Smith. "Pragmatism at Work: Dewey's Lectures in China." Journal of Chinese Philosophy. Vol. 12 No. 3, September 1985, 231-259.
• Sor-Hoon Tan. "China's Pragmatist Experiment in Democracy: Hu Shih's Pragmatism and Dewey's Influence in China." Metaphilosophy, Vol. 35, Nos. 1/2, January 2004, Blackwell Publishing.

Dewey in Japan

• Naoko Saito. "Education for Global Understanding: Learning from Dewey's Visit to Japan." Teachers College Record. Vol 105, No. 9.

Dewey in both

• Sun Youzhong. "The Trans-Pacific Experience of John Dewey." Japanese Journal of American Studies. No. 18, 2007.

A thought. TheSlowLife (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings TheSlowLife - please go ahead! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

TheSlowLife (if your user name betrays your life style, my how I envy you), I would second Technopat; go for it. I would also agree that the China trip was very important. His wife (first wife) also used this trip as an opportunity to contribute to Chinese social life. Having said that I just looked back and noticed that his marriages (two) are not mentioned, nor his children. Should there not be at least a mention of his family? Mddietz (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Advisory Committee of Dr Potter's First...

Various sources give the date as 1929, but according to the "Chronology", it was 1940. Any ideas? --Technopat (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)