Wednesday 24 December 2008

What should be the aim of education?

This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 17 December 2008.

We have two newcomers, so I open with a preamble:

"Welcome to philosophy cafe. This is an event where participants engage in the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth and right. This is unlike ordinary discussions, where people jump to the first answer they can think of; and unlike academic philosophy discussions, where people refuse to come to any answer at all. Our discussions are aimed at arriving at answers, and we achieve rationality and rigour by adhering to a simple algorithm that I've created -- and call Automated Thought Machine."

A popular vote decides the evening's topic: "What should be the aim of education?"

Three answers are proposed:
1. To liberally open the individual's mind.
2. To prepare people for society (a simulation for actual life).
3. To subjugate the masses into one world order.

We activate Automated Thought Machine.

Ask question.
What should be the aim of education?

State position.
To liberally open the individual's mind.

Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a good (thing).

Do reasons imply conclusion (position)?
Yes.

Are reasons true?
It is a good (thing) for the individual, but not always good for society.

We decide to narrow the reason to: Liberal mindedness is a good (thing) for the individual.

Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a good (thing) for the individual.

Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.

Are reasons true?
We decide we cannot answer this unless we define "good". We define "good" as "maximum happiness". So, our reason becomes: Liberal mindedness is a maximum happiness for the individual.

Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a maximum happiness for the individual.

Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.

Are reasons true?
A counterexample is offered. Introduction of endorphins into the body (eg. via consuming dark chocolate) can cause a greater happiness than that caused by liberal mindedness. So, the answer to this question is "no".

We try to save the argument by confining the term "happiness" to Aristotelian eudaimonia -- a uniquely human happiness achieved through the exercise of reason. This obviates endorphins as a counterexample, since it is incapable of causing eudaimonia.

The reason now is: Liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.

Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.

Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.

Are reasons true?
Yes.

Accept position.

The argument has passed both tests of a good argument. We accept the argument.

The aim of education should be to liberally open the individual's mind, because liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.

We have an answer (it is not impossible for education to have several aims) to the evening's question.

We have no time to consider the other two proposed answers. Discussion ends. It has been a good session.


Readers interested to engage in philosophical discussions are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome (prior knowledge of philosophy is not required). The next philosophy cafe session is on 21 January 2009. [If Gone Fishing Cafe happens to be closed, look for the bearded Chinese guy at the nearby Al Ameen Restaurant.]

Tuesday 16 December 2008

Will Tokyo's new package work?

Source: The Straits Times, 13/12/8, p.A5
Headline: Tokyo unveils new help package

Quote1:
TOKYO: Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso yesterday announced a new stimulus package to shore up his country's economy. ... The additional package ... "may help slow the pace of a worsening economy but it doesn't have enough power to buoy the economy," said Mr Mamoru Yamazaki, chief Japan economist at RBS Securities Japan in Tokyo.

Comment1:
Mr Yamazaki has made an assertion, but offers no argument (at least none is reported) to support it. We are told one credential, that he is chief economist at RBS Securities Japan. That's all we have to go on. Is that enough?

Quote2:
"This is a desperate attempt by Mr Aso to recover support," said Mr Minoru Morita, an independent political analyst and author of a book on Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party. "He's falling deeper into a quagmire by announcing various measures that aren't backed up by budgets." -- AP, Bloomberg.

Comment2a:
The charge of "desperate attempt" offers a psychological cause or political motive behind Mr Aso's announcement of a new stimulus package. It does not amount to saying the package will be ineffective. It is logically possible for a desperate attempt to nonetheless be effective.

Comment2b:
We are told two credentials: "independent political analyst" and "author of a book on Japan's ruling LDP". Are they enough?

Comment2c:
An enthymeme (partial argument) is offered. We complete the argument, providing the hidden parts in square brackets.

Premiss1: [If (measures not backed up by budgets), then (fall deeper into quagmire)]
Premiss2: Measures not backed up by budgets
Conclusion: Hence, fall deeper into quagmire

The argument has the form Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q), which is valid. We accept Premiss2 as a statement of fact. The remaining test is whether Premiss1 is true. Intuitively, it is not. The fact of a measure not being backed up by budgets does not seem sufficient on its own to guarantee an economy falling deeper into quagmire. Since the argument fails this final test, we must reject the argument.

The World Bank predicts ...

Source: My Paper, 11/12/8, p.A8
Headline: East Asia will suffer less than other regions

Quote:
WASHINGTON: Mr Vikram Nehru, World Bank's chief economist for East Asia and Pacific Region, warned that downside risks to the region's growth remained, citing the fallout from the global financial crisis. "The situation is changing so rapidly, literally from day to day," he said at a news conference in Tokyo. "Things could very easily get worse than we projected, and the slowdown could last longer." -- AFP, Reuters.

Comment:
What does the word "could" in "could very easily get worse" and "could last longer" mean? It certainly must mean "not impossible", as in "not impossible to get worse" and "not impossible to last longer". It does not mean "impossible to get better". It does not mean "impossible to be shorter". Most important, the word "could" must not be read as "definitely will happen". That is, we must not read "things could very easily get worse" as "things definitely will get worse", or read "the slowdown could last longer" as "the slowdown definitely will last longer".