Tag: John Dewey

Posted on

Wisdom from the flames: seeking perennial lessons from the Los Angeles fires

Seneca in flames

Fresno Bee, January 19, 2025

Human existence is precarious. Our vulnerability demands that we be intelligent and moral. If we were indestructible, we would not need to be prudent, courageous or kind. But fragile, mortal beings should strive to be smart, brave and compassionate.

These are the moral lessons of disaster. And we are learning them again as fires rage in Southern California. We must stop the flames and comfort the afflicted. Once the smoke clears, we ought to ask what we can learn about living well in a flammable world.

Let’s begin with intelligent action: Intelligence offers the best protection from adversity and bad luck. As America’s philosopher of democracy John Dewey once said, “Luck will always be with us. But it has a way of favoring the intelligent and showing its back to the stupid.”

Intelligent animals engage the world with creative ingenuity, while unintelligent beasts fail to adapt to misfortune. Dumb brutes keep beating their heads against the wall. But intelligent beings identify problems, understand causality and respond with imagination.

Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to this problem in a letter he wrote to President-elect Donald Trump, inviting him to visit the fires currently ravaging Southern California.

“We must not politicize human tragedy or spread disinformation from the sidelines,” Newsom wrote. This was apparently in response to Trump’s false claims about how California water policy supposedly contributed to the conflagrations.

Human intellect is amazing. We have produced complex systems of knowledge and tools which have allowed us to master misfortune. One remarkable fact about the L.A. fires is that (thankfully, so far) many people escaped the flames. Without our communications infrastructure and other technologies, including modern firefighting, things could have been worse.

Our intelligence has allowed us to dominate much of the earth. When the earth bites back, we need to adapt with further intelligent action. It is not smart to build — or rebuild — fragile houses in vulnerable areas. And we have also, frankly, not been wise about development and climate change. Future generations may wonder why, despite our intelligence, we are often so dumb.

Our stupidity is linked to a larger epistemic crisis. Expertise and knowledge are devalued and politicized. Misinformation and disinformation proliferate. Polarization and distrust make it difficult to achieve consensus.

Getting smarter will require cultural, political and ethical change. The epistemic crisis is a political and cultural crisis as well as a moral problem. To make intelligent decisions and prepare for future emergencies, we need to solve our social and political dysfunction. We need a better understanding of science and more critical thinking. We also need a healthy dose of common sense.

Disasters are occasions for clarifying our values. The Stoic philosopher Seneca said, “disaster is virtue’s opportunity.” He meant that when disaster strikes. our moral fiber is tested, and our virtues and vices are revealed. Misfortune demands that we demonstrate who we are and what we value.

It is encouraging, in this regard, to see outpourings of compassion and kindness, as the fires rage. Natural disasters inspire a kind of “There but for the grace of God go I” humility and empathy. No home is absolutely disaster-proof; fire is an indiscriminate destroyer. The morality of the Good Samaritan and the Golden Rule obviously apply in cases like these.

Compassion and care are obviously needed in a disaster. That’s why it is alarming to see opportunists take advantage of misfortune. Looting and price-gouging pile wickedness on top of calamity. And it is shameful to score cheap political points while the flames still burn.

Natural disasters ultimately remind us of perennial wisdom about wealth and possession. Everything we own, and everyone we love, will eventually fade away. So it is wise not to cling. It is better to acknowledge the fundamental impermanence of things. Enjoy what you’ve got, cherish what is irreplaceable, but bravely prepare to lose what was never truly yours to begin with.

The lessons learned from disaster apply across the whole of life. Intelligent beings should prepare for the worst, while developing our better angels. It is prudent to prepare a “go bag.” In this combustible world, we also need ethical and spiritual preparation. Nothing lasts forever. But virtue is more durable than any finite, flammable good.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article298650503.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Intellectual Freedom and Resurgent Censorship

At Fresno State, we recently hosted a discussion of book banning with Professor Emily JM Knox, who presented a compelling case for the need to think critically about resurgent censorship. Professor Knox discussed efforts to remove, restrict, redact, and relocate books in libraries. She has made similar points in Congressional testimony in September, 2023, where she reiterated ideas found in her book, Foundations of Intellectual Freedom.

Here in Fresno County, county libraries are restricting access to certain books, that as a Count Board resolution states “contain sexual writings, sexual references, sexual images, gender-identity content, and other sexual content or content deemed age-inappropriate.” This effort prompted the Freedom to Read Foundation, the ACLU, and others to write a strongly worded letter opposing the plan.  That letter stated that the rule would violate the First Amendment and “impose an unlawful and invasive censorship regime on the constitutional right to access library books.”

The effort to balance freedom of thought with the desire to protect young people from harm is a legitimate conflict of values. There are well-meaning people on both sides of this debate. First Amendment rights are fundamental to an open society. And yet, there may be good reasons to restrict the liberty of children. We do not allow kids to buy alcohol, firearms, or pornography, or hang out in bars. But there are always risks when limiting liberty, and critics of censorship fear a slippery slope toward other restrictions of freedom of thought.

This issue seems to breed polarization. Some book ban proponents are conservative reactionaries, unhappy with society’s permissive views of gender and sexuality. A similar kind of “anti-woke” conservatism inspires those who want to ban books that discuss critical race theory. Meanwhile, the liberal critics of the anti-woke movement describe it as a war on truth and a war on black history. Liberals tend see censorship of sexual content as prudish, bigoted, intolerant, and closed-minded. But right-wingers claim that those liberals are anti-American “groomers” intent on destroying civilization. And so it goes in a polarized culture, where it is increasingly difficult to find common ground. 

For my part, I am worried about a slippery slope toward broader censorship and authoritarianism. The new censorship must be understood in connection with dangerous nonsense about ‘fake news’ and the press as ‘the enemy of the people’ (as I have described in my book on Trump and tyranny).

History provides some warnings. Censorship has occurred throughout American history. In one of my first publications, I discussed the Kansas state school board’s ban on the teaching of evolution, which occurred in the 1990’s. Given this bit of recent history and the rise of Christian nationalist ideology, we ought to be worried about resurgent censorship. 

Authoritarian political movements generally want to limit liberty. This is not a partisan issue. Although recent cases, and the Kansas evolution case, involve right-wing censorship, left-wing causes can also employ authoritarian tactics. Mao Tse-Tung once said that more books you read, the stupider you become.  During Mao’s Cultural Revolution books were burned. More recently, Chinese Communists have staged book burnings as the Party seeks tighter ideological control.

The antidote for this is to remain committed to the fundamental value of free, open, and critical inquiry. Philosophers have defended intellectual freedom, ever since Socrates was executed for asking critical questions. Philosophers think that persuasion is superior to coercion. We think that good ideas can defend themselves without the need for censorship. There may be, in some cases, a need to protect children. But in the long run, the best way to protect both truth and democracy is to affirm the importance of a broad conception of intellectual freedom. 

In my paper on the Kansas school board’s ban on evolution, I turned to one of America’s great philosophers, John Dewey, for inspiration. Dewey was a staunch defender of open inquiry and democracy. In conclusion, I want to share a couple of sentences from an essay on Intellectual Freedom written by Dewey during his visit to China over a hundred years ago:

A dictatorship can endure only when its people are denied the freedom to think, to speak, and to publish freely; to state the converse, the enjoyment of intellectual freedom would guarantee the overthrow of the dictatorship…. Freedom of intellectual life is not only indispensable to a democratic society, but is also the most greatly feared threat to a dictatorial government. In fact, we can say that this freedom is a necessary condition to human progress.

Posted on

Virtues and Vices of Online Learning

The idea of “reopening schools” is hopelessly politicized.  School are “open,” even though teaching and learning have moved online.  Unfortunately, school “reopening” is a political football.  There is a legitimate debate about school safety and the well-being of children, staff, and teachers.  But the political environment does not foster careful thinking about teaching and learning.

It is obvious that learning can happen online.  Americans learn online every day.  Youtube videos teach us how to do home improvements or how to play guitar.  Useful apps teach foreign languages.  Business training involves videos and interactive websites.

Some people don’t like this.  Some are nostalgic for the routine of sitting together in classrooms, hanging out and chatting in the halls.  Of course, not everyone is nostalgic for this.  Face-to-face schooling also includes loneliness, bullying, and stress.

Schools are not simply places for learning.  Public schooling is an essential part of the economy and the social safety net.  Schools allow parents to get to work.  They provide breakfast and lunch for poor children.  They are places of refuge for kids who need social and emotional support.  They are also connected to the rituals and routines of American life: football games and marching bands, holiday concerts, and so on.

But the traditional classroom is not essential for learning.  Learning is an individual activity which requires effort, concentration, discipline, and motivation.  John Dewey explained, “learning means something which the individual does when he studies.  It is an active, personally conducted affair.”  Social supports help.  But the learner must do the learning, alone with a book, a piece of music, or a math problem.

A recent article interviewed college students who complained about online learning.  One student said she lacked motivation.  Another said, “I just feel like I’m turning in work and not really learning anything.” 

Those same problems occur in the face-to-face environment.  Teachers have long complained about unmotivated students who go through the motions and don’t learn.  The issue of motivation and engagement is not an online problem.

The bigger problem is that schooling is viewed as a necessary evil and not as something valuable in itself.  Whether online or in person, if you don’t view value what you are learning, you will be unmotivated and disengaged. 

Working adults encounter the same problem when completing mandatory training courses.  Whether online or face-to-face, if you don’t want to be there, it is hard to learn.  On the other hand, if you are curious and interested, you will learn whether online or in person. 

For curious learners, online learning can be very effective.  One advantage of asynchronous courses is that you can rewind or fast-forward videos according to your own needs and interests.  This is much better than suffering through a boring lecture in a crowded classroom. 

Or consider the difference between in-person discussions and written discussion forums.  In-person discussions typically group students in a circle to encourage oral communication.  Skills of speaking and listening can be developed in this environment.  But often the circle is dominated by a few loud talkers, while other students sit passively. 

Online forums that encourage written communication are more inclusive of the quiet and reflective student.  The level of discourse in written discussion forums is typically much higher than in in-person discussion.  When students write online posts, they have more time to reflect. 

By now, our technologies are flexible. Oral discussion can occur online through programs like Zoom.  Written communication can be practiced in the classroom.  Both skills are important.  Each can be learned in either environment. 

At the end of the day, neither modality is inherently better or worse.  It all depends on the way the teacher structures the activity and on the motivation and curiosity of the student. 

Teachers and students still have a lot to learn about online education. As with most things, there are pros and cons, virtues and vices.

But online learning is not going away. And if we work at it (if we try to learn to do it better…) we will get better at it.  We won’t learn to improve if we keep complaining and waxing nostalgic for the old routine.  Nor does it help to let politics get in the way of thinking carefully about what it means to teach and to learn.

Posted on

Optimism, Pessimism, and Meliorism

Bad news bumming you out?
Turn off the TV, go out and make some good news

Fresno Bee, November 10 2017

Every day there is cruelty somewhere in the world. Some days – as after the Texas church shooting – our hearts simply break. But the world also is full of kindness and care.

Our estimation of life is a matter of perspective. Optimism and pessimism depend on where we look. But what matters most is what you do. If you are sick of the bad news, turn off the television and go out and make some good news.

An old truism holds that the pessimist see the glass as half-empty while the optimist sees it as half-full. But active and engaged people don’t bother to measure the contents of their cups. They savor what they’ve got, drink it down, then go looking for a refill.

One name for this approach is meliorism. Meliorists want to make things better – to ameliorate them. Meliorists are pragmatists. They don’t ignore the evils of life. But they see setbacks as challenges to be overcome, rather than disasters that doom us to defeat.

There always are obstacles and work to be done. Pragmatists discover joy in that work. There is meaning and purpose in the process of planning, building and improving things.

BE NOT AFRAID OF LIFE. BELIEVE THAT LIFE IS WORTH LIVING,
AND YOUR BELIEF WILL HELP CREATE THE FACT.
Willam James

This pragmatic philosophy is typically American. It is the guiding idea of American philosophers such as William James and John Dewey.

Dewey said, “Meliorism is the belief that the specific conditions which exist at one moment, be they comparatively bad or comparatively good, in any event may be bettered.” James explained, “Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact.”

This idea can also be found in the philosophical musings of Eleanor Roosevelt. She explained, “The purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for new and richer experience. You can do that only if you have curiosity, and an unquenchable spirit of adventure.”

This adventurous ethos makes sense in the context of our immigrant and pioneer heritage. People come to America to build and create, explore and grow. Pioneers and immigrants don’t rest at home, criticizing and complaining. They work and build. And if they don’t like things here, they move on to greener pastures.

Related to this is something we might call zest, gusto, or joie de vivre. The basic love of life fills active people with energy and enthusiasm. They awake in the morning eager to learn, explore and create.

Lack of energy breeds cynicism. The cynic fails to enjoy life. And so he judges and mocks those who do. But vivacious people don’t have time for cynicism. They are too busy living. And they improve life by embracing it with dynamism and imagination.

Pessimists will complain that energetic engagement with the world demands too much effort. Some pessimists see the need for work as a sign of an imperfect world. But this is lazy and short-sighted. Life requires labor. If you don’t work, you don’t eat. There is no way around this basic fact.

THE PURPOSE OF LIFE IS TO LIVE IT, TO TASTE EXPERIENCE TO THE UTMOST, TO REACH OUT EAGERLY AND WITHOUT FEAR FOR NEW AND RICHER EXPERIENCE. YOU CAN DO THAT ONLY IF YOU HAVE CURIOSITY, AND AN UNQUENCHABLE SPIRIT OF ADVENTURE.
Eleanor Roosevelt

Pessimists are disappointed the world is not perfect. But a perfect world would be boring. It is the challenges in life that get the juices flowing. It is work that gives life meaning.

Optimism also involve intellectual laziness. The optimist’s rose-colored glasses screen out tragedy and loss. They look the other way, deliberately ignoring suffering and pain. But this is a recipe for disaster. If we ignore the evils of life, we will fail to take precautions to prevent them.

Loss and pain cannot be ignored. This world includes genuine evils. But sweat and tears provide the salt that helps us savor the sweet times. And kindness and care can make the world a better place.

A good life is never simply given to us. It is built on prudent planning, creative problem solving and hard work.

Optimists ignore the need for prudence, hoping things will turn out fine. Pessimists roll their eyes, disappointed that life requires effort. The rest of us – the majority of hard-working, pragmatic people – roll up our sleeves, wipe away the sweat and tears, and get back to work.

http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article183938506.html

Posted on

The National Anthem, The Pledge of Allegiance, and Democracy

How about a civil dialogue on civic pride?

Fresno Bee, September 17, 2016

Flag protests have broken out all over. Following Colin Kaepernick’s lead, NFL players have taken a knee or raised a fist during the playing of the national anthem. High school athletes have joined in. A Missouri state senator, Jamilah Nasheed, recently sat out the Pledge of Allegiance, as did a New York City councilman, Jumaane D. Williams.

screen-shot-2015-07-10-at-2-58-28-pm_vice_970x435Responses to these protests have been interesting. The band Kiss led their audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Singer Paul Stanley said, “Patriotism is always cool.” Singer Kid Rock was less subtle. He referred to Kaepernick with an expletive while singing in front of a massive American flag. Less subtle still was an Alabama high school football announcer who suggested that anthem protesters should be shot.

As this unfolded, I’ve been helping to organize a Constitution Day event at Fresno State. One of my colleagues, civic education expert John Minkler, proposed starting the event with the pledge. Minkler sees the pledge as an affirmation of the social contract that helps stimulate reflection on patriotism and the constitutional system.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Student organizers were less enthusiastic about including the pledge. Some wondered whether the pledge was constitutional. They worried that the phrase “under God” seems to violate the First Amendment. They were concerned that the pledge seems to exclude non-Christians.

But the courts have allowed expressions of “ceremonial deism” such as the pledge – as well as “In God we trust” and other phrases. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against a Sacramento atheist, Michael Newdow, who claimed that the pledge was unconstitutional.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained in her opinion in that case that ceremonial references to God serve only to “solemnize an occasion” without endorsing any particular religion. She hinted that students who object to religious words can simply not say them, while participating in the rest of the pledge.

Students also are allowed to opt out of the pledge entirely. Recently in Chicago, a teacher tried to force a student to stand for the pledge. The teacher was reprimanded and the student was vindicated.

The pledge was invented in 1892. In the early days, people saluted with an open palm raised toward the flag. This looked like the Nazi salute. So in the 1940s people began covering their hearts instead of raising their hands. The words “under God” were added to the pledge in 1954 during the anti-Communist era.

Since the beginning there have been protests. Jehovah’s Witnesses have refused to say the pledge, saying that flag salutes are a form of idolatry. In a 1940 case concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Supreme Court defended compulsory pledging of allegiance saying, “National unity is the basis of national security.” But in 1943 the court reversed itself saying, “Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws.”

At around this time, the American philosopher John Dewey suggested that the pledge had become a pale substitute for the reality of justice and liberty for all. He identified mistreatment of “Negroes,” anti-Semitism, and opposition to “alien immigrants” as significant problems.

WHETHER WE RECITE THE PLEDGE OR STAY SILENT, WHETHER WE KNEEL OR COVER OUR HEARTS, WE SHOULD ALWAYS THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT OUR WORDS, OUR DEEDS AND OUR COMMON HUMANITY.

Seventy years later, we are confronting similar issues. Those who protest the pledge and the national anthem likely believe that we need liberty and justice for all. But they believe we are failing to live up to that ideal.

If there is hope and common ground here, it lies in those underlying values. Justice, equality, liberty and respect for persons are essential values of a common human morality. Those values transcend any flag or religion.

Some criticize the pledge as a kind of nationalistic indoctrination. But the ethical ideals expressed in the pledge point beyond jingoistic patriotism and religious exclusivism toward cosmopolitan concern for liberty and justice for all.

Liberty and justice are fragile and complicated. They cannot be defended by shouted expletives or silent gestures. Rather, they require civil dialogue that seeks common ground and mutual understanding.

Liberty and justice are destroyed by violence and incivility. This is true whether you protest the flag or protest the protesters. Whether we recite the pledge or stay silent, whether we kneel or cover our hearts, we should always think carefully about our words, our deeds and our common humanity.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article102243777.html#storylink=cpy