This question pertains to learning and how we process the world around us.
Descartes felt that we needed to doubt everything (Radical Doubt) and start from scratch; the only thing that we can truly be certain of is that we have a mind. "I think, therefore, I am." He relies predominantly on reason as is mode of learning: does what I'm learning stand up to reason and logic? If not, toss it.
John Locke felt that as humans we were born with blank slates (tabula rasa) and that we learn through a combination of our senses and observation and experience and memory. Nothing is innate and that almost everything we learn is gained from the outside world. When you consistently observe sensory data, you begin to form memories and complex ideas from these experiences.
A philosopher who we'll study later next week is George Berkley who believed that the senses and observation were the primary learning tool. In some ways, for Berkley, the only things that exist are things that we perceive, and once we stop perceiving them, they stop existing. But since we see people and objects continually reappear in our world in a very similar and consistant state - carrying on as if they had their own life/existence without us perceiving them, there needs to be a way to explain that. As you could probably guess, the only being capable of doing all of that in his mind.
So, two questions now that I think about it:
1. How do you best learn? Why? Combination or one way best for you?
2. In which way do you think schools are lacking as they prepare kids for the world? With this question, I am looking for an analysis on where you think the emphasis is misplaced, not specifics on any teacher's methods or a slam session on Groves H.S.
Due Friday, 250 words minimum. Thanks.