The high school I work at is a Paideia charter school, which means I get to go off script occasionally with my students.
Next week my chemistry students will have a "Paideia Seminar" on a modified wiki page on Dualism. Which essentially means they will get in a big circle and have a discussion on that piece of literature while I observe and grade the quality of the discussion (normally I would be part of the discussion, but with this group I find its better if I give them a sheet with some questions I want them to hit, and stay out of it directly). Before they do this I would like to give them a lecture on different broad philosophies, and than focus in a little on Dualism vs Physicalism. (Since it's a science class, I'm hoping they'll come to the conclusion that Physicalism is the way to go, but it's an open discussion so who knows what will happen.)
For the lecture I will give before the open discussion I wanted to start by writing "Mind/Body/Spirit" on the board, and than define/explain different Monisms based on those principles. Body: Materialism//Physicalism. Mind: Idealism//Solipsism. Spirit: Pantheism//Buddhism. I would than go into some different dual philosophies, like how Dualism is a mix of mind/body and how Abrahamic religions tend to be a mix of spirit/body. I would than explain this is a public school and for the discussion tomorrow I want them to not focus on the spirit, but just focus in on Dualism vs pure Physicalism. I would explain some of the different kinds of Dualism outlined on the wiki page they will 'hopefully' have already read at this point.
However, as I sat down today to write my lesson plans for the week, I wanted to slip Platonism into the lecture. (I started looking at Platonism when Crushing00 mentioned it a year ago here) However, I didn't know where to put it on the "mind/body/spirit" spectrum. It would be a Dual philosophy, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy pretty clearly stats it's not "mind/body." So, that would leave "body/spirit," but that doesn't sound right either.
Anyway, it seems like if I included Platonism I would have to restructure the lecture to be "Physical vs Nonphysical" instead of "mind/body/spirit." Or, I should just not include it at all.
What do you guys think? How does one classify Platonism? Is it important to include in my brief overview?
(To put this in further perspective, these are normal public high school Sophomores, and I'm not going to spend more than 70 minutes total getting them ready for the discussion. We have to get back to hydrophobic/hydrophilic.)
A large part of the (probably the last 30-40 mins) will be going over the text. I understand the "more harm than good" problem with generalizing some of these more complex subjects. But, I wanted to run through some of the general concepts for philosophy first. They likely have never see them, and might not ever again. I can also preference my lecture with "I'm not an expert in this, and a graduate level philosophy major would likely want to strangle me at the end of they heard all of what I'm about to say."
I don't think it's right to say that Platonism is itself a kind of dualism. Rather, one can use Platonism as a basis for certain arguments for mind-spirit dualism.
Perhaps the most famous argument along these lines is Plato's own: the fact that e.g. two men, not in communication with one another and both uneducated in geometry, may nevertheless arrive, after some thought, at the same true conclusion about a geometric object, indicates (says Plato) that the mind is not producing a truth about that object, but rather is accessing the ideal realm of Platonic forms in which all the truths about that object are to be found. If we agree to call that realm "spiritual," then this could be regarded as arguing for a form of "mind-spirit" dualism using Platonism as one of the assumptions.
Perhaps the confusion would be lessened (and the discussion made more acceptable-sounding for a public school setting, to boot) if a word other than "spiritual" were found to describe that which is outside both the mind and the body.
Wouldn't Platonism be "mind-body" or "body-spirit?" I'm have trouble seeing how it would be "mind-spirit." Are you saying Platonism states 2 kinds of 'things' exist, both of which are nonphysical? I thought it was saying 2 kinds of 'things' exist, one being physical and one being nonphysical.
Or, are you saying "body-mind/spirit?"
We did the discussion today. We started with 8 students in favor of dualism and 2 in favor of physicalism. After ~60 mins, we still had 8 in favor of dualism and 2 in favor of physicalism I was hoping someone would switch somewhere.
It strikes me the difference for this debate is normally axiomatic, at least at the level of high schoolers. It's hard to argue such differences with the level of info sophomores have.
Next week my chemistry students will have a "Paideia Seminar" on a modified wiki page on Dualism. Which essentially means they will get in a big circle and have a discussion on that piece of literature while I observe and grade the quality of the discussion (normally I would be part of the discussion, but with this group I find its better if I give them a sheet with some questions I want them to hit, and stay out of it directly). Before they do this I would like to give them a lecture on different broad philosophies, and than focus in a little on Dualism vs Physicalism. (Since it's a science class, I'm hoping they'll come to the conclusion that Physicalism is the way to go, but it's an open discussion so who knows what will happen.)
For the lecture I will give before the open discussion I wanted to start by writing "Mind/Body/Spirit" on the board, and than define/explain different Monisms based on those principles. Body: Materialism//Physicalism. Mind: Idealism//Solipsism. Spirit: Pantheism//Buddhism. I would than go into some different dual philosophies, like how Dualism is a mix of mind/body and how Abrahamic religions tend to be a mix of spirit/body. I would than explain this is a public school and for the discussion tomorrow I want them to not focus on the spirit, but just focus in on Dualism vs pure Physicalism. I would explain some of the different kinds of Dualism outlined on the wiki page they will 'hopefully' have already read at this point.
However, as I sat down today to write my lesson plans for the week, I wanted to slip Platonism into the lecture. (I started looking at Platonism when Crushing00 mentioned it a year ago here) However, I didn't know where to put it on the "mind/body/spirit" spectrum. It would be a Dual philosophy, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy pretty clearly stats it's not "mind/body." So, that would leave "body/spirit," but that doesn't sound right either.
Anyway, it seems like if I included Platonism I would have to restructure the lecture to be "Physical vs Nonphysical" instead of "mind/body/spirit." Or, I should just not include it at all.
What do you guys think? How does one classify Platonism? Is it important to include in my brief overview?
(To put this in further perspective, these are normal public high school Sophomores, and I'm not going to spend more than 70 minutes total getting them ready for the discussion. We have to get back to hydrophobic/hydrophilic.)
A large part of the (probably the last 30-40 mins) will be going over the text. I understand the "more harm than good" problem with generalizing some of these more complex subjects. But, I wanted to run through some of the general concepts for philosophy first. They likely have never see them, and might not ever again. I can also preference my lecture with "I'm not an expert in this, and a graduate level philosophy major would likely want to strangle me at the end of they heard all of what I'm about to say."
Perhaps the most famous argument along these lines is Plato's own: the fact that e.g. two men, not in communication with one another and both uneducated in geometry, may nevertheless arrive, after some thought, at the same true conclusion about a geometric object, indicates (says Plato) that the mind is not producing a truth about that object, but rather is accessing the ideal realm of Platonic forms in which all the truths about that object are to be found. If we agree to call that realm "spiritual," then this could be regarded as arguing for a form of "mind-spirit" dualism using Platonism as one of the assumptions.
Perhaps the confusion would be lessened (and the discussion made more acceptable-sounding for a public school setting, to boot) if a word other than "spiritual" were found to describe that which is outside both the mind and the body.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Or, are you saying "body-mind/spirit?"
We did the discussion today. We started with 8 students in favor of dualism and 2 in favor of physicalism. After ~60 mins, we still had 8 in favor of dualism and 2 in favor of physicalism
It strikes me the difference for this debate is normally axiomatic, at least at the level of high schoolers. It's hard to argue such differences with the level of info sophomores have.