Day: February 17, 2020

1) Why are attitudes and values an important goal of social studies learning?

2)What is scope and sequence? How can it help a social studies teacher?

3) What is differentiated instruction and how should it look in a lesson?

4)What is the purpose of using multiple intelligences? What are the potential pitfalls of using it or relying too much on it?

Please indicate each answer

One could say that the modernist turn shifted from contemplation and living the good life to a search for the Archimedean Point, or view from above that could determine Truth and Reality (capital T and R) in Essentialist ways, along with how we can produce what we can know, the latter concern ushered in by the modern scientific revolution.  Shifts in privileging empiricism and the pragmatic over theory and contemplation shifted into higher gears at this time. Do you think we arrived at an Archimedean Point, and, given your answer to this question, what difference has it made to how we do research, assessment and therapeutic care?

CRYSRALS RESPOND

When taking the Archimedean point into consideration, Scalambrino (2018) refers to Descartes and the Cogito. Descartes doubted and rejected most things that the world knew to be true and was adamant about finding a real truth that would be impossible to doubt- including his own existence-  While in the throes of his doubting, he came to the conclusion  doubting, actually requires thinking, which confirms his existence  because one must exist to think. This realization led him to his first concrete principle Cogito Ergo Sum: I think, therefore I exist.  This seems like this could have been his Archimedean point because this gave him something to believe in that he could actually confirm or hold onto in his mind.  Descartes believed we were  only thinking beings of mind and soul but doubted the reality of a body and  the dependability of the senses. His proof was based on his experiences with the senses while dreaming, that did not show up while he was awake ((Mohammed, 2012).

He ultimately concluded that  man (kind)  has  a mind, which is the thinking being, and there is the body which is an extension. Therefore we have two aspects of ourselves; spiritual and  material. Both are markedly different and can subsist independent of each other.

If we looked at this from a scientific point of view, according to Mohammed (2012) then it we would only believe that the physical things such as the body and brain are real, our thinking activities take place specifically in the brain, and when the brain dies we cease to stop thinking. The brain is the self.  From a spiritual  or soul perspective, if the brain is responsible for our consciousness, we would not cease to exist if the brain was in an unconscious state such as a coma, or even in cases of clairvoyance or telepathy.

From a more modern perspective, I am not so sure we have reached an Archimedean point because I think that thoughts and perspectives change with the times. Political, social, personal, and group constructs are always changing with the aim of searching for the truth.

Mohammed, A. (2012) A Critique of Descartes Mind-Body Dualism. Kritike V.6,1 95-112

Scalambrino, F. (2018). Philosophical principles of the history and systems of psychology: essential distinctions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Veitch, V. ( Descartes, R). (1966),22. The Meditations Illinios. The Open Court Publishing Company,

Vesey, G. (1964). Body and Mind, (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd

Main post
One could say that the modernist turn shifted from contemplation and living the good life to a search for the Archimedean Point, or view from above that could determine Truth and Reality (capital T and R) in Essentialist ways, along with how we can produce what we can know, the latter concern ushered in by the modern scientific revolution.  Shifts in privileging empiricism and the pragmatic over theory and contemplation shifted into higher gears at this time. Do you think we arrived at an Archimedean Point, and, given your answer to this question, what difference has it made to how we do research, assessment and therapeutic care?

Claras respond to main post

Scalambrino (2018) explains various elements of the Renaissance principles and our global world in view of .  For example, secularism can be considered a standard principle in relation to what is a modern scientific revolution.  Secularism, as a principle, can be significant in view of reaching an Archimedean Point, where Scalambrino (2018) considers secularism for its influence in moral (theological) versus scientific matters. 

Scalambrino (2018) also discusses Descartes, who understood the Cogito as the Archimedean point needed to lift science out of the jurisdiction of the Church (p. 132).  The move to an ego-centric model, interestingly, can be considered in view of secular shifts as well, where matters of the can be considered to become objective mechanisms to include in relation to mechanisms of the mind. 

It seems in various ways we may still be at an Archimedean Point.  Differences this shift has made from theo-centric to ego-centric, for example, seen in how we do research, assessment, provide therapeutic care may align with ideas presented by Larsson (2017) such as regarding technological advances, such as considered in view of lab settings; common arenas for the conducting of research.  Larsson (2017) also describes a secular world view and economic context.  This seems relevant in view of an Archimedean Point, where the economic value of research, and ultimately therapeutic care seems important for the role of authority and scientific authority at institutional levels.  Which also seems important to consider at the academic/university level, to include as among places where research is often produced, and where ideas can be seen as governed by what can be secular scientific authority.

References

Larsson, P. (2017). Psychological healing: Historical and philosophical foundations of professional psychology. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. 

Scalambrino, F. (2018). Philosophical principles of the history and systems of psychology: essential distinctions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.