Teaching Plato in Palestine PDF Å Teaching Plato PDF

Teaching Plato in Palestine PDF Å Teaching Plato PDF

Teaching Plato in Palestine [KINDLE] ✿ Teaching Plato in Palestine By Carlos Fraenkel – Larringtonlifecoaching.co.uk Teaching Plato in Palestine is part intellectual travelogue part plea for integrating philosophy into our personal and public life Philosophical toolkit in tow Carlos Fraenkel invites readers on a tou Teaching Plato in Palestine is part intellectual travelogue part plea for integrating philosophy into our personal and public life Philosophical toolkit in tow Carlos Fraenkel invites readers on a tour around the world as he meets students at Palestinian and Indonesian universities lapsed Hasidic Teaching Plato PDF \ Jews in New York teenagers from poor neighborhoods in Brazil and the descendants of Irouois warriors in Canada They turn to Plato and Aristotle al Ghazālī and Maimonides Spinoza and Nietzsche for help to tackle big uestions Does God exist Is piety worth it Can violence be justified What is social justice and how can we get there Who should rule And how shall we deal with the legacy of colonialism Fraenkel shows how useful the tools of philosophy can be—particularly in places fraught with conflict—to clarify such uestions and explore answers to them In the course of the discussions different viewpoints often clash That’s a good thing Fraenkel argues as long as we turn our disagreements on moral religious and philosophical issues into what he calls a culture of debate Conceived as a joint search for the truth a culture of debate gives us a chance to examine the beliefs and values we were brought up with and often take for granted It won’t lead to easy answers Fraenkel admits but debate if philosophically nuanced is attractive than either forcing our views on others or becoming mired in multicultural complacency—and behaving as if differences didn’t matter at all.

10 thoughts on “Teaching Plato in Palestine

  1. BlackOxford BlackOxford says:

    Idolatry in the Modern World The thesis of Teaching Plato in Palestine is that honest philosophical discussion creates understanding among people with conflicting interests Such understanding Fraenkel believes can lead to truths which can be recognised and appreciated by all To achieve this we must create a “‘culture of debate’” the double uotes are necessary since he constantly uses them in the text In taking such a stand Fraenkel appears as a typically liberal academic who perhaps a little naively thinks that talking is better than fighting Who could possibly disagree But his rather sentimental attachment to academic philosophy masks his deeply ingrained dedication to continuing the error that is the cause of much violence in the first place the idolatry of languageThe thought that argument a logical progression of statements based on explicit presumptions can lead to changed minds much less human solidarity is simply ludicrous He forgets that there are two principle forms of logical argument modus tollens and modus poenens The latter takes the form of ‘if p then ’ and then seeks to prove that ‘p’ is the case thus establishing the truth of the conclusion ‘’ Modus poenens is how we typically make our argument moving step by step up a chain of reasoningBut modus tollens is how we listen to someone else’s argument This has a similar initial logical structure ‘if p then ’ But then there’s a turnaround because this also implies ‘if not then not p’ Few of us pay attention to an ascending chain of reasoning We know by experience that this is inefficient We know instinctively that if we don’t agree with a conclusion it’s because buried deeply in any argument is an implicit ‘p’ that is untenable And we know that those making arguments are keen to hide this hidden ‘p’ from us Since we disagree with the conclusion ‘’ we know there is dud link somewhere in the chain of reasoningAnd there is indeed such a dud link in Fraenkel’s argument He believes that agreement about words and how they fit together things like principles moral codes philosophical systems indeed logic itself implies agreement about what might be called our life interests those things that are not words which are important to us The words we use to describe these things family nation God wealth reputation culture of debate mean very different things to different people Words are only defined in terms of other words never in terms of personal experiences This uite apart from the fact that some of these experiences have never been or even can be described in wordsFraenkel thinks that words are the ultimate bringers of peace He’s delusional At best they are agreements to suspend hostilities treaties At worst words are what create and solidify animosity manifestos The various Christian creeds provide ample proof of the use of words to establish tribal solidarity at the expense of violence in a larger community Words become idols readily and pervasively than any golden calf or Roman house god The danger of agreement about words is far greater than the opposite Agreement gives the illusion of fixity that the words are than words that they describe reality Words are not reality This is the liberal political fallacy And it is Fraenkel’s erroneous presumption His argument is vacuous It can lead nowhere rational It is also dangerous because the making of such arguments can only increase mutual suspicion and hostility when their vacuity becomes clearI believe that violence is always evil that power which can exercise violence must always be mistrusted that power exists in society primarily as a conseuence of words and that words are therefore as dangerous as they are useful Words like Islam Israel Christianity are obviously so Words like Rationality Debate Clarity are less obvious but no less potent forms of potential power Arguments always contain inherent interests which may not even be visible to those arguing Debate may reveal those hidden interests or make known ones entrenched But they never can resolve interests which conflict Such resolution is a matter of religious conversion love or mental imbalance not good argumentsAs I write this I am listening to the latest news about the Trump impeachment hearings The public response to allegations about Trump has always demonstrated modus tollens as the dominant mode of listening Almost all Democrats think the man is a crook Almost all Republicans think he is being persecuted The arguments presented are virtually meaningless

  2. robin friedman robin friedman says:

    Talid And A Culture Of DebateOne of the best recent books I have read is Carlos Fraenkel's deeply learned and thoughtful work Philosophical Religions from Plato to Spinoza Reason Religion and Autonomy” 2012 The book aims in the author's words to “lay the groundwork for understanding and tracing the history of what I call a philosophical religion” The book is a difficult historical study of the relationship of philosophy reason and religion from Plato to Spinoza Fraenkel teaches philosophy and religion at McGill University and at Oxford He has a varied background which is reflected in his work as he has lived and studied in Germany Brazil Israel and ParisWhile Fraenkel's first book was lengthy and erudite the book I am reviewing here Teaching Plato in Palestine Philosophy in a Divided World 2015 is relatively short and it is written for lay readers Fraenkel sees philosophy as a process of thinking than as a particular doctrinal teaching such as existentialism idealism logical positivism He writes What I mean is the practice of philosophy; acuiring techniues of debate logical and semantic tools that allow us to clarify our views and to make and respond to arguments and cultivating virtues of debate valuing the truth than winning an argument and trying one's best to understand the viewpoint of the opponent Fraenkel's goal is to show how the study and practice of philosophical thinking as so understood is not merely a matter for academics but rather might help individuals in their own thought on what is important and might also help cultures and groups of different views to understand each other and to get along better The goal of getting people of different views to understand one another without necessarily giving up their own position would be of great worth in our currently polarized country But the examples Fraenkel offers are taken from different sources some of which might be even seemingly intractableThe book is in two parts In the first part Fraenkel describes five philosophical workshops he conducted between 2006 2011 to try to show students and non specialists the value of thinking philosophically The first chapter for which the book is named describes Fraenkels' experience in a Palestinian University in which he encourages students to reflect on their strongly held religious and political commitments Fraenkel next describes a three week visit to Indonesia a very different Moslem country where he encouraged his interlocutors to think about the long intellectual history of Islam and its relationships to other religions and to a pluralistic society In the third chapter Fraenkel explores a variety of theological and philosophical issues with a small group of Hasidic Jews from both the Satmar and the Lubavitcher sects who have become uncomfortable with their Orthodoxy For me this was the most personal and fascinating part of the book Then Fraenkel visits Brazil the country of his birth and describes the workings of the government mandated program of teaching philosophy in high schools and the different ways such a program might be implemented In the final chapter Fraenkel meets with Mohawk Indians on the Canadian United States border and discusses uestions of personal identity history and governmentThe second part of the book consists of a single chapter Diversity and Debate It is a philosophical essay in which Fraenkel tries to draw lessons from his experiences teaching philosophical thinking to peoples from different cultures The most striking part of this chapter is the discussion of talid The medieval Islamic philosopher al Ghazali came to realize that the thinking of most people himself included was based on talid the views he had uncritically absorbed from his early years from family and surroundings He came to realize the importance of reflecting and perhaps surmounting talid seeing for example that had he been raised in a Jewish or Christian instead of an Islamic home and land he surely would have understood things differently Talid becomes a basis for reflecting on one's unexamined assumptions and ideas much as Socrates tried to get his fellow Athenians to reflect and to think criticallyWith talid comes a sense of fallibilism which means that most human beliefs even those held most strongly could be otherwise and might be wrong or subject to change and interpretation Much contemporary philosophy including that of the American pragmatists is heavily influenced by concepts of fallibilism In his free flowing essay Fraenkel uses talid and fallibilism to encourage what he calls a culture of debate in which people of different points of view talk to each other honestly and in friendship to try to discover the bases for their different approaches to important uestions for life to promote both understanding of oneself and others Fraenkel argues that the culture of debate differs from both multiculturalism and relativism in that it is truth directed individuals are encouraged to search for what is true and what is right rather than rest in cultural differences Fraenkel believes that the project of instilling a culture of debate during the latter years of high school would help people develop the conceptual and reflective skills to understand themselves and othersThe book is written in an engaging accessible manner Fraenkel encourages the reader to think about important uestions and brings wonderful company to bear in the figures of Socrates Plato Aristotle Spinoza Maimonides Nietzsche al Ghazali and In this American election year if nothing else people need to be reminded to reflect on their ideas in a careful critical way while being mindful of other points of view This book will appeal to philosophically inclined readers who want to reflect on the nature of philosophical thought and on its valueRobin Friedman

  3. Vikas Lather Vikas Lather says:

    I think Fraenkel was right a Marxist may dismiss this book as the clash between religious and bourgeois ideologoies a Nietzchean may call it as a disguise fight for domination and a Freudian may find it as a manifestation of supressed desires However I think it is an interesting attempt to have a healthy debate between rationality and Islam Having said that the author ignores real confrontation between religious doctrines which go directly against the idea of social justice gender euality just resource redistribution idea of examined life and diversity So this book is only a good introduction for a debate between Islam and philosophy not an end in itself As an old rule of philosophy goes first attempt is the worst attempt but nonetheless an important attempt

  4. Kkraemer Kkraemer says:

    Carlos Fraenkel argues that argument is essential Argument he says is the collaborative search for truth the willingness to compare ideas and insights with other people in order to build an understanding of our world and our place within it He illustrates what he means by reporting on philosophical arguments all over the world Each conversation begins with Aristotle and Plato and then moves on to consider philosophers who speak to the truths and conflicts of society The conversations explore the role of God's law the role of government the relationship between people in civil societies morality colonialism and self identity and they reveal not only paradoxes but the historical and social contexts of the various societies In Palestine and New York where he converses with a group of ultra orthodox Jews many participants acknowledge that even talking about ideas in such a way is completely forbidden In Brazil and the Mohawk Nation meanwhile discussing philosophical uestions is regarded as social necessity though both groups acknowledge that it doesn't happened enough The conversations are fascinating and wide ranging so it's difficult to read them without trying to engage the people around you in the discussions that you're having with those on the page Sometimes it's the ideas that you want to talk about; other times it's the philosophical traditions or the conversations themselves At one point he uotes Nietzsche Imagine a divine messenger who reveals to you that 'this life as you now live it and as you lived it in the past you will have to live again and another infinite times; and there will be noting new but every pain and every pleasure every thought and every sigh and every unspeakable smallness and greatness of your life will come back in the same seuence and order'What would you do ' gnaw your teeth and curse him' or say 'you are a god; I've never heard of anything divine'As you ponder this uestion you can see why it's a difficult book to read by yourself

  5. SSC SSC says:

    Thought provoking book with a wonderful premise of holding philosophical discussions in Palestine and Sulawesi in particular communities where religious belief is strong It also argues that a lively debate in relation to theology values and beliefs could be encouraged by mandatory education in philosophy ala Brazil and the need for this cultural debate even in multicultural societies which tend to suppress differences rather than discuss them

  6. Janis Janis says:

    The author's discussions about ethics and morality were interesting but this book assumes that the reader has completed or remembers a college level Philosophy class

  7. Colin Meert Colin Meert says:

    Inspires you into seeing the merit of philosophy

  8. Katie Katie says:

    If I had not been reading it for a book discussion I would have put it down halfway through His premise had promise but I found his writing to be needlessly confusing; he jumped between topics often usually refused to come to any conclusions which is fine for discussions but bad for composition uoted conversations inorganically and name dropped in every other sentence If he really intended this book for a non academic audience he failed to alter his style to his audienceBesides that I had a personal aversion to this book He takes any chance he can to antagonize Christian tradition and the fact that he NEVER mentions St Thomas Auinas as a fellow Aristotelian with the Muslim Averroes and the Jewish Maimonides seems like a prideful and petty omission Auinas is a giant in the world of historical philosophy; I could not take the author seriously with his absenceGo read Josef Pieper’s “The Philosophical Act” instead

  9. Amanda Miller Amanda Miller says:

    Cool premise The first two chapters were over my headand there were definitely portions throughout that I didn't understand Mainly when he'd go off on specific philosophers I really enjoyed chapts 3 5 especially with the Mohawks I wish it was a bit easier to understand for a layman philosopher such as myself

  10. Jim Lavis Jim Lavis says:

    It’s a boring travelogue sprinkled with some philosophical uotes Total disappointment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *