Why Don't We Teach People How To Think? An Outdated Political System and an Educational Divide

Post date: Feb 27, 2016 6:17:12 PM

Our current democratic system, specifically voting, is outdated.

It worked well back in the day when government, laws and policies were much simpler compared today. That's why we have a field called Political Science. Today we have voters and political parties who have different ideas about how the government should handle different issues. To make an informed decision on issues, laws and policies politicians and voters should know some philosophy, science, economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory. But how many do?

Instead, voters put their faith in politicians and candidates to know and understand these subjects but how many of them really do? How many laws and policies are actually based on good understanding of these subjects? Having an understanding of these subjects was not really necessary in the days of Abraham Lincoln and so the voting system worked then. Today, not only do we have an economic divide but an educational divide where most people do not have a basic understanding of these important subjects and vote based on what sounds good, popularity, what makes them comfortable or what makes them feel good.

The result? It seems to me that voters that do have a good understanding of those subjects (probably the 1%) are outvoted by those that don't (the 99%) and we end up with laws passed and people elected that should not be. This is like going to the mall and asking 30 random people what's the best way to overhaul an engine. Very few opinions will actually come from well informed and learned people such as mechanics or engineers but most of the opinions will be misguided or uneducated. It would therefore be foolish to attempt your engine overhaul based on the opinions of the majority.

Moreover, most people (voters) care only about when and how a specific issue affects them personally. If an issue does not impact them directly, they could care less. They don't consider how the issue affects other people or the world at large. How many of us know the consequences of raising taxes, immigration, drones or fracking?

:: Why is there an “educational divide"?

Not only do most voters not have a basic understanding on these particular subjects but most do not even know how to think correctly or even independently!

As JP Moreland has said: "Our society has replaced heroes with celebrities, the quest for a well-informed character with the search for flat abs, substance and depth with image and personality. In the political process, the makeup man is more important than the speech writer, and we approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images, emotions, and slogans all packed into thirty-second sound bites. The mind-numbing, irrational tripe that fills TV talk shows is digested by millions of bored, lonely Americans hungry for that sort of stuff. What is going on here? What has happened to us? ...Because of the mindlessness of our culture, people do not persuade others of their views (religious or otherwise) on the basis of argument and reason, but rather, by expressing emotional rhetoric and political correct buzzwords... Reason has given way to rhetoric, evidence to emotion, substance to slogan, the speech writer to the makeup man and rational authority to (the right to command compliance and to be believed) to social power (the ability to coerce compliance and outward conformance)." (Love Your God With All Your Mind).

Why are we in this predicament? We took Philosophy out from our educational system, from the core curriculum! We are now dependent on others! We have become a society that could not think for ourselves. This has affected both Politicians and those what vote for them.

Logic is a branch of philosophy that involves the understanding of the laws that regulate our thought processes; is a universal practice; studies the methods that we use to analyze information and draw valid conclusions; puts all of these methods into an order that gives the right way to draw conclusions; is a study, an ordering, of how to think rightly or how to find truth; a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions and that logic is a negative test for truth (Come Let us Reason. Norman Geisler). If logic is a way to think so that we find truth, then we always ought to be logical so that we know the truth; a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking. So, logic can be used to prove whether or not our faith, opinion, worldview, religion, political system/theory, etc. makes sense; if it's reasonable or foolish.

It is best to construct one's view of the world by reflecting upon concepts, formulating beliefs that differentiates essentials from non essentials, being critical of unfounded traditions, using study tools and resources, using methods (systematic rules, procedures), being open to critique, and conducting personal research. And one should avoid formulating opinions based on hearsay information, no evidence, popularity, traditional and religious folklore, emotion, passion, personal investment. Which is a better method for developing personal beliefs: learning how to think through issues, coming to your own decisions/conclusions, and learning how to evaluate your own beliefs or being taught what to believe, what someone else thinks is true? Why learning logic is important.

So, why don't we teach logic and philosophy in our public schools!? Why did math, history and science become main subjects when they all depend on Logic! You can Logic without these subjects but you can't have them without Logic.

"In the Middle Ages, students at Oxford would enter at the age of 14 or 15 and would begin a course of studies in the trivium – grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic – the latter of which included philosophy and, according to Robert Rait, “was the real interest of the medieval student.”

In colonial America, teaching philosophy to teenagers was par for the course. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the average first-year student at Ivy League colleges was fifteen years-old. During his 3-4 years at school he would have had a steady diet of Greek and Roman philosophers.

Even at the end of the nineteenth century, one can still find evidence of philosophy being taught in public schools at the high school level. In... Minnesota, students taking the 1893 high school board exams had to answer questions on Kant, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics..." Should We Be Teaching Philosophy in High School? (We Used To... Daniel Lattier | October 2, 2015 http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/should-we-be-teaching-philosophy-high-school).

Michael Shammas in his “For a Better Society, Teach Philosophy in High Schools” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-shammas/for-a-better-society-teac_b_2356718.html

explains it this way:

“...American society is dysfunctional. Our Congress is useless, our institutions inept. Faced with the terror of existence, young men like Adam Lanza react with violence. Faced with manageable problems such as a "fiscal cliff," our democracy self-destructs. Anger is everywhere; understanding is nowhere.

Although a democratic society cannot function unless its citizens are able to rationally debate one another, rationality is missing from American politics. We assail our political enemies with intractable opinions and self-righteous anger. An ugly bitterness pervades everything. Meanwhile, our country is slowly but surely committing suicide...

Because the capacity to debate requires the capacity to think, I believe the answer lies in philosophy.

Why philosophy? Because the study of philosophy, the "love of wisdom," creates and nurtures thoughtful minds, minds that can -- as Aristotle suggests -- entertain a thought without accepting it. With a philosophic worldview, a Republican who despises any tax increase or economic stimulus could at least consider the notion of tax hikes or Keynesian economics. A Democrat facing antithetical ideas could do likewise. Thought rather than anger could become the default response to opposing worldviews...

Despite the benefits of the philosophic mindset, we do not cultivate this mindset in our children. In fact, philosophy is almost entirely absent from American schools. For example, there is no AP (Advanced Placement) Philosophy course. While some high schoolers may have heard of Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle, most do not truly understand their philosophies -- much less the philosophies of men like Descartes, Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche. This is shameful, because a person who does not understand the history of thought does not understand the rationality behind our political system...

In general, philosophy does not squander religion; it merely exhorts one to understand the world by opening one's mind. It encourages one to consider multiple possibilities (unlike our politicians), only accepting the possibility that appeals to one's innate sense of reason. In a diseased society that is filled with so much anger and bitterness -- indeed, with so much madness -- we could do worse than expose our children to philosophy. In fact, such exposure would teach our children to react to problems with an inquisitive rather than angry mind -- a concept that the children in Congress have not yet grasped.

To those who say philosophy is impractical (and thus that learning how to think is impractical) I say: nonsense. Our society is dysfunctional because we have forgotten how to think, if we ever truly knew how to think at all. Although we as a society believe we are in possession of all truth, we are not.”

So, I am not for equal voting privilege for every one. Everyone can vote, but I don't they that everyone should. I would rather see voting restricted to the 1% of citizens who have a good understanding of the relevant issues, of philosophy, science, economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization, and political theory OR have our have the 99% of “uneducated” citizens be given better education (taught how to think) so that they can vote intelligently. Would you rather place your trust on a group of doctors that have a limited understanding of what is wrong with you? In the same way, our nation should be led by leaders that have an advanced understanding of relevant subjects and they should be elected by those that also have a basic unsderstanding.

Here is a good site that compares the various candidates: http://presidential-candidates.findthebest.com

And, what if our nation's leaders were not chosen based on political correctness and rhetoric but based on education, knowledge and experience? What if having a Doctorate of Philosophy was a requirement? What would be the consequences of someone who has spent 8-12 yrs in field of specialization within the discipline? someone who has had to make a substantial and original contribution to human knowledge (dissertation)? Who has had to study science, sociology, history, and philosophy? Who has had to  defend their work before a panel of expert examiners in the given discipline?