Skip to main content

How we think (1920)


Book note.  

An important but neglected work by John Dewey, published by DC Heath, Boston, 1910, and one in the public domain, is known as How we think.

Here is a link.  https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/37423/pg37423-images.html 

How we think opens in striking fashion, "No words are oftener on our lips than thinking and thought. So profuse and varied, indeed, is our use of these words that it is not easy to define just what we mean by them." That phrasing could have led to a Wittgensteinian view of such definitions as games, where usage drives meaning rather than the reverse.  

It doesn't go there. Rather: the first chapter comes to the conclusion that thinking is "that operation in which present facts suggest other facts (or truths) in such a way as to induce belief in the latter upon the ground or warrant of the former."  He suggests a man out for a walk who notices a cold breeze.  This may induce him to look toward the sky, which may in turn appear cloudier, darker than had been the case when he first stepped out for the excursion. He may of course quicken his steps heading home to beat an incoming rain. In such an instance, though it is a simple one, there is a clear operation of thought in which the breeze and clouds become warrant to a belief in an upcoming rainfall.  

Fun fact.  There is a "John Dewey High School" in Brooklyn, New York, NY. See above.

The high school motto, "Dewin it right."

But ... back to my train of thought.  Dewey then proceeds to discuss what we need to add to this idea of thought to justify the adjective "critical".  Critical thinking, readers may remember, is to be the goal of a Deweyite education. 

I'll leave you with that. 

  

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more