Response to Andrew Warner

Andrew was hoping for clarification about Post-Modernism. Post modernism is a complex intellectual movement that touches many different disciplines. However, I can only clarify how I've seen it employed in the Education department here at MCLA, as that is the extent of my experience with it. One of the purported cornerstones of Post Modern theory in education is the lack of objective knowledge. The epistemological viewpoint of a Post-Modernist is very different from that of a realist. The Realist believes that objective knowledge can be obtained, where as the, say, constructivist would think that our knowledge is a subjective construction. This becomes a crucial problem in education, where you are attempting to impart knowledge. It raises a series of interesting and confusing questions. If you're operating under the belief that there is no objective knowledge, how can you assess a student's work or answers? Why is your subjective knowledge more or less correct than the student's? What is the value in attempting to impart your subjective knowledge? Something I have seen all to frequently in the Education department here is an actual aversion to using the word truth. It has even been insisted to me that I put quotation marks around truth to denote that I do not mean objective truth. These theories are having a tremendous impact on the field of education right now. I'm far from knowledgeable about most Post Modern theory, however, I hope that this gives some context and clarification for my suggestion of tackling these topics in class.

Questions of Good Thought and PTL's Syllabus

Recently I looked over the syllabus for this class. One sentence struck me and I was hoping to bring it to the attention of the class and see what we think. The line that strikes me is, "good thinkers are good writers (and vice versa)," (found under the Q+A's and Weblog section of our syllabus). This seems to adopt a narrow view of 'good thinking', and it seems worthy of exploration. Ability to articulate one's ideas in a written form was not one of the traits discussed in our break down of critical thinking and good reasoning, however that certainly doesn't mean it is not. Yet, it seems that making good writing a necessary qualification of a  good thinker takes a limiting view of intelligence, in which non written skills aren't as highly valued. I am, however, inclined to agree with the idea of the good writer as a necessarily good thinker. I hope to hear some responses from the class and professor, perhaps I'm reading too far into the claim, or not being charitable enough.