In this article, Eisner says that “the mind is conceived of as a collection of relatively independent faculties and aptitudes. I completely agree with this statement, the only thing that I have against it is that he does not state that these aptitudes are different for everyone. I believe that it is these differences in aptitudes that make everyone think differently. Nobody thinks the same way, everyone answers questions differently and that is because of these aptitudes. This can be illustrated with the age old question of whether the bottle is half full or half empty. Someone who thinks more logically than otherwise would say that it depends whether the bottle is being filled up or being emptied. Someone who thinks philosophically might ask “what bottle?” Every question can have a different answer, the way it is answered depends on the person, just like each one of us in this class reads the same articles and talks about different things. It is because everyone has different aptitudes that this happens. Reflection on Giroux
In the first few sentences of this article, Giroux talks about the idea of teaching teachers. This is something that has always interested me, how do you educate someone in such a way that this person then becomes a good teacher. More interestingly though is how do two people who go through the exact same University training become different types of teachers. One could be arguably good and the other one bad. This means that there must be more to it than simply the education process. Sociologically speaking, everything that happens to us shapes us as human beings, it shapes our personality and just about everything that we do. This does not mean however that having bad teachers throughout our life will turn us into a bad teacher as well, more likely it would mean that it drove you to be a good teacher, to teach in a way that you would have liked to be taught. This leads me to wonder if the educational process really has anything to do with what type of teacher we become, is this all determined sociologically? Do Universities simply give us more knowledge and does not really teach us how to be better teachers? Does this apply to other fields as well? Does the quality of a physiotherapist simply rely on his education or does it depend on the type of person he or she is? In my mind, it is not the education that makes a person, it is what this person goes through, this determines what types of person they are and ultimately whether or not this person will have success in their field of work. Reflection on Nussbaum
In his article, Nussbaum states that Mr gangrid is right, literature and imagination are subversive. The online Merriam Webster dictionary defines being subversive as “a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly within”. To state that all literature is out to get the government is absurd. How could children’s literature be out to get the government? I’m sure that there are plenty of pieces of literature stating that capitalism is a rotten political system and that communism is much better. I can see how someone would think that this type of article or piece of literature is out aimed to destroy the government, perhaps it is, and perhaps it isn’t. For a piece of literature to really have an impact and threaten the government, it would have to be read by the masses, not only a few political science majors, it would have to be as big and even more controversial than let’s say, the Harry Potter franchise. But then again, a book like that most likely wouldn’t get anywhere near as popular. Reflection on Chinnery
In this essay, the author recalls a story where a mother banned all books from her child except for the bible and five other books about the bible because of the fear that it would shape her daughter’s moral compass negatively. The article goes on to explore the idea of literature shaping our moral values....