Con motivo de la presentación del segundo parcial de lenguas extranjeras, les proponemos un pequeño video sobre uno de nuestros temas favoritos del blog LA ALEGORÍA DE LA CAVERNA DE PLATÓN.
ghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffNbC0O5XCg
miércoles, 15 de octubre de 2014
Task 8
Compartimos la rubrica elaborada en grupos.
|
Criterio
|
Insatisfactorio
|
Limitado
|
Bueno
|
Excelente
|
|
Estética
(diseño)
|
0,25 |
0,5 |
1 |
2 |
|
Tareas
realizadas(0-3-6-9)
|
0,25 |
0,5 |
1 |
2 |
|
Utilización
de textos académicos
|
0,25 |
0,5 |
1 |
2 |
|
Criterio
didáctico
|
0,25 |
0,5 |
1 |
2 |
|
Uso
de organizadores gráficos y enlaces
|
0,25 |
0,5 |
1 |
2 |
|
Creatividad
|
0,25 |
0,5 |
1 |
2 |
martes, 14 de octubre de 2014
Task 7
Philosophy and theology
Main article: Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard has been
called a philosopher, a theologian,the Father of Existentialism,
both atheistic and theistic variations, a literary
critic,]a social theorist, a humorist, a psychologist, and
a poet. Two of his influential ideas are "subjectivity"]and
the notion popularly referred to as "leap of faith".However, the
Danish equivalent to the English phrase "leap of faith" does not
appear in the original Danish nor is the English phrase found in current English
translations of Kierkegaard's works. Kierkegaard does mention the concepts of
"faith" and "leap" together many times in his works.
The leap of faith is
his conception of how an individual would believe in God or how a person would
act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain
beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such
evidence could ever be enough to completely justify the kind of total
commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves
making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the
same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God,
one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational
part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the
faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian
doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty
about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous. For example, it
takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking
at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to
know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has
faith in God. Kierkegaard writes, "doubt is conquered by faith, just
as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world".
Kierkegaard also
stresses the importance of the self, and the self's relation to the world, as
being grounded in self-reflection and introspection. He argued in Concluding
Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments that
"subjectivity is truth" and "truth is subjectivity." This
has to do with a distinction between what is objectively true and an
individual's subjective relation (such as indifference or commitment) to that
truth. People who in some sense believe the same things may
relate to those beliefs quite differently. Two individuals may both believe
that many of those around them are poor and deserve help, but this knowledge
may lead only one of them to decide to actually help the poor. This is how
Kierkegaard put it: "What a priceless invention statistics are, what a
glorious fruit of culture, what a characteristic counterpart to thede te narratur
fabula [the tale is told to you] of antiquity. Schleiermacher so enthusiastically
declares that knowledge does not perturb religiousness, and that the religious
person does not sit safeguarded by a lightning rod and scoff at God; yet with
the help of statistical tables one laughs at all of life." ]In
other words Kierkegaard says: "Who has the more difficult task: the
teacher who lectures on earnest things a meteor's distance from everyday life
-- or the learner who should put it to use?"
Kierkegaard primarily
discusses subjectivity with regard to religious matters. As already noted, he
argues that doubt is an element of faith and that it is impossible to gain any
objective certainty about religious doctrines such as the existence of God or
the life of Christ. The most one could hope for would be the conclusion that it
is probable that the Christian doctrines are true, but if a person were to
believe such doctrines only to the degree they seemed likely to
be true, he or she would not be genuinely religious at all. Faith consists in a
subjective relation of absolute commitment to these doctrines.[196]
Philosophical criticism
Kierkegaard's famous
philosophical 20th century critics include Theodor Adorno and Emmanuel Levinas.
Non-religious philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heideggersupported
many aspects of Kierkegaard's philosophical views, but rejected some of his
religious views.[197][198] One
critic wrote that Adorno's book Kierkegaard: Construction of the
Aesthetic is "the most irresponsible book ever written on
Kierkegaard"[199] because
Adorno takes Kierkegaard's pseudonyms literally, and constructs a philosophy
which makes him seem incoherent and unintelligible. Another reviewer says that
"Adorno is [far away] from the more credible translations and
interpretations of the Collected Works of Kierkegaard we have today."[85]
Levinas' main attack on
Kierkegaard focused on his ethical and religious stages, especially in Fear and Trembling. Levinas criticises the
leap of faith by saying this suspension of the ethical and leap into the
religious is a type of violence. He states: "Kierkegaardian violence
begins when existence is forced to abandon the ethical stage in order to embark
on the religious stage, the domain of belief. But belief no longer sought
external justification. Even internally, it combined communication and
isolation, and hence violence and passion. That is the origin of the relegation
of ethical phenomena to secondary status and the contempt of the ethical
foundation of being which has led, through Nietzsche, to the amoralism of
recent philosophies."[]
Levinas pointed to
the Judeo-Christian belief that it was God who first
commanded Abraham to
sacrifice Isaac and
that an angel commanded Abraham to stop. If Abraham were truly in the religious
realm, he would not have listened to the angel's command and should have
continued to kill Isaac. To Levinas, "transcending ethics" seems like
a loophole to excuse would-be murderers from their crime and thus is
unacceptable.[] One
interesting consequence of Levinas' critique is that it seemed to reveal that
Levinas viewed God as a projection of inner ethical desire rather than an
absolute moral agent.[] However,
one of Kierkegaard's central points in Fear and Trembling was
that the religious sphere entailsthe ethical sphere; Abraham had
faith that God is always in one way or another ethically in the right, even
when He commands someone to kill. Therefore, deep down, Abraham had faith that
God, as an absolute moral authority, would never allow him in the end to do
something as ethically heinous as murdering his own child, and so he passed the
test of blind obedience versus moral choice.
Sartre objected to
the existence of God: If existence precedes
essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being
cannot be complete or perfect. In Being and Nothingness, Sartre's phrasing is
that God would be a pour-soi (a being-for-itself; a consciousness) who is
also an en-soi (a being-in-itself; a thing) which is a
contradiction in terms. Critics of Sartre rebutted this objection by
stating that it rests on a false dichotomy and a misunderstanding of the
traditional Christian view of God.[]
Sartre agreed with
Kierkegaard's analysis of Abraham undergoing anxiety (Sartre calls it anguish),
but claimed that God told Abraham to do it. In his lecture, Existentialism is a Humanism, Sartre
wondered whether Abraham ought to have doubted whether God actually spoke to
him.[] In
Kierkegaard's view, Abraham's certainty had its origin in that 'inner voice'
which cannot be demonstrated or shown to another ("The problem comes as
soon as Abraham wants to be understood"). To
Kierkegaard, every external "proof" or justification is merely on the
outside and external to the subject.] Kierkegaard's
proof for the immortality of the soul, for example, is rooted in the extent to
which one wishes to live forever.
Faith was something that
Kierkegaard often wrestled with throughout his writing career; under both his
real name and behind pseudonyms, he explored many different aspects of faith.
These various aspects include faith as a spiritual goal, the historical orientation
of faith (particularly toward Jesus Christ), faith being a gift from God, faith
as dependency on a historical object, faith as a passion, and faith as a
resolution to personal despair. Even so, it has been argued that Kierkegaard
never offers a full, explicit and systematic account of what faith is. Either/Or was
published 20 February 1843; it was mostly written during Kierkegaard's stay in
Berlin, where he took notes on Schelling's Philosophy of Revelation.
According to the Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Religion,
Either/Or (vol. 1) consists of essays of literary and music criticism, a set of
romantic-like-aphorisms, a whimsical essay on how to avoid boredom, a panegyric
on the unhappiest possible human being, a diary recounting a supposed
seduction, and (vol. II) two enormous didactic and hortatory ethical letters
and a sermon. This opinion is a reminder of the type of controversy
Kierkegaard tried to encourage in many of his writings both for readers in his
own generation and for subsequent generations as well.
Resumen en del texto en
español :
Artículo principal:
Filosofía de Søren Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard ha sido
llamado un filósofo, teólogo, el Padre del existencialismo, tanto ateo y
variaciones teístas, un crítico literario, un teórico social, un
humorista, un psicólogo, y un poeta. Dos de
sus ideas influyentes son "subjetividad", y la noción popularmente se
conoce como "salto de fe". Sin embargo, el equivalente
danés a la frase Inglés "salto de la fe "no aparece en el original
danés ni es la frase inglés encontrado en traducciones inglesas actuales de
obras de Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard menciona los conceptos de "fe" y
"salto" juntos muchas veces en sus obras. La fe consiste en hacer que
el compromiso de todos modos. Kierkegaard pensaba que para tener fe es al mismo
tiempo tener dudas. Así, por ejemplo, que uno tenga verdaderamente la fe en Dios,
uno también tiene que dudar de las creencias acerca de Dios; la duda es la
parte racional del pensamiento de una persona involucrada en valoración de la
prueba, sin la cual la fe no tendría ningún fundamento real. Alguien que no se
da cuenta de que la doctrina cristiana es inherentemente dudosa y que no puede
haber ninguna certeza objetiva acerca de su verdad no tiene fe, pero no es más
crédula. Por ejemplo, se necesita fe para creer que existe un lápiz o una mesa,
cuando uno está buscando en ella y tocarla. De la misma manera, creer o tener
fe en Dios es saber que uno no tiene ninguna percepción o cualquier otro acceso
a Dios, y sin embargo, todavía tiene fe en Dios. Kierkegaard escribe, "la
duda es conquistada por fe, así como es la fe la que ha llevado a la duda en el
mundo”
Críticas a su Filosofía
Famosos críticos filosóficos
del siglo 20 tomaron a Kierkegaard, incluyen Theodor Adorno y
Emmanuel Levinas. Filósofos no religiosos, como Jean-Paul Sartre y Martin
Heidegger apoyaron muchos aspectos de las ideas filosóficas de Kierkegaard,
pero rechazaron algunos de sus puntos de vista religiosos. Por ejemplo :
Sartre se opuso a la
existencia de Dios: Si la existencia precede a la esencia, se deduce del
significado de la expresión consciente de que un ser sensible no puede ser
completa o perfecta. En El ser y la nada, el fraseo de Sartre es que Dios sería
un pour-soi (un ser-para-sí; una conciencia) que es también un en-soi (un
ser-en-sí, una cosa) que es una contradicción en términos. [197] [203] los
críticos de Sartre refutó esta objeción diciendo que se apoya en una falsa
dicotomía y una mala comprensión de la visión cristiana tradicional de Dios.
Sartre estuvo de acuerdo
con el análisis de Kierkegaard de Abraham sufrir ansiedad (Sartre llama
angustia), pero afirmó que Dios le dijo a Abraham para hacerlo. En su
conferencia, El existencialismo es un humanismo, Sartre se pregunta si Abraham
debería haber dudado de que Dios realmente le habló. En vista de
Kierkegaard, la certeza de Abraham tuvo su origen en esa "voz
interior" que no puede ser demostrada o muestra a otra ("el problema
viene tan pronto como Abraham quiere ser entendido"). [205] para
Kierkegaard, cada externa "prueba" o la justificación no es más que
en el exterior y exterior al sujeto. [206] prueba de Kierkegaard de la
inmortalidad del alma, por ejemplo, tiene sus raíces en la medida en que uno
desea vivir para siempre.
La fe era algo que
Kierkegaard menudo luchó con toda su carrera de escritor; tanto bajo su nombre
real y detrás de seudónimos, exploró muchos aspectos diferentes de la fe. Estos
diversos aspectos incluyen la fe como una meta espiritual, la orientación
histórica de la fe (en especial hacia Jesucristo), la fe es un don de Dios, la
fe como la dependencia de un objeto histórico, la fe como una pasión, y la fe
como una resolución a la desesperación personal . Aun así, se ha argumentado
que Kierkegaard nunca ofrece una relación completa, explícita y sistemática de
lo que la fe es.
miércoles, 8 de octubre de 2014
Task 4
Biography
Early life
Jean-Paul Sartre was born in Paris as the only child of Jean-Baptiste Sartre, an officer of the French Navy, and Anne-Marie Schweitzer. His mother was of Alsatian origin and the first cousin of Nobel Prize laureate Albert Schweitzer. (Her father, Charles Schweitzer, was the older brother of Albert Schweitzer's father, Louis Théophile.)When Sartre was two years old, his father died of a fever. Anne-Marie moved back to her parents' house in Meudon, where she raised Sartre with help from her father, a teacher of German who taught Sartre mathematics and introduced him to classical literature at a very early age. When he was twelve, Sartre's mother remarried, and the family moved to La Rochelle, where he was frequently bullied.
As a teenager in the 1920s, Sartre became attracted to philosophy upon reading Henri Bergson's essay Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness.He studied and earned a degree in philosophy in Paris at the École Normale Supérieure, an institution of higher education that was the alma mater for several prominent French thinkers and intellectuals. It was at ENS that Sartre began his lifelong, sometimes fractious, friendship with Raymond Aron. Sartre was influenced by many aspects of Western philosophy, adopting ideas from Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Søren Kierkegaard, Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, among others. Perhaps the most decisive influence on Sartre's philosophical development was his weekly attendance at Alexandre Kojève's seminars, which continued for a number of years.
From his first years in the École Normale, Sartre was one of its fiercest pranksters.In 1927, his antimilitarist satirical cartoon in the revue of the school, coauthored with Georges Canguilhem, particularly upset the director Gustave Lanson. In the same year, with his comrades Nizan, Larroutis, Baillou and Herland, he organized a media prank following Charles Lindbergh's successful New York-Paris flight; Sartre & Co. called newspapers and informed them that Lindbergh was going to be awarded an honorary École degree. Many newspapers, including Le Petit Parisien, announced the event on 25 May. Thousands, including journalists and curious spectators, showed up, unaware that what they were witnessing was a stunt involving a Lindbergh look-alike. The public's resultant outcry[need quotation to verify] forced Lanson to resign.
In 1929 at the École Normale, he met Simone de Beauvoir, who studied at the Sorbonne and later went on to become a noted philosopher, writer, and feminist. The two became inseparable and lifelong companions, initiating a romantic relationship, though they were not monogamous. The first time Sartre took the exam to become a college instructor, he failed. But he took it a second time and was first in his class, with Beauvoir second.
Sartre was drafted into the French Army from 1929 to 1931 and served as a meteorologist for some time. He later argued in 1959 that each French person was responsible for the collective crimes during the Algerian War of Independence.
Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyle and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, "bad faith") and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work L'Être et le Néant (Being and Nothingness) (1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism and Humanism (1946), originally presented as a lecture.
Late life and death[edit]
Hélène de Beauvoir's house in Goxwiller, where Sartre tried to hide from the media after being awarded the Nobel Prize.
In 1964 Sartre renounced literature in a witty and sardonic account of the first ten years of his life, Les mots (Words). The book is an ironic counterblast to Marcel Proust, whose reputation had unexpectedly eclipsed that of André Gide (who had provided the model of littérature engagée for Sartre's generation). Literature, Sartre concluded, functioned ultimately as a bourgeois substitute for real commitment in the world. In October 1964, Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature but he declined it. He was the first Nobel laureate to voluntarily decline the prize, and remains one of only two laureates to do so. In 1945, he had refused the Légion d'honneur.The Nobel prize was announced on 22 October 1964; on 14 October, Sartre had written a letter to the Nobel Institute, asking to be removed from the list of nominees, and warning that he would not accept the prize if awarded, but the letter went unread; on 23 October, Le Figaro published a statement by Sartre explaining his refusal. He said he did not wish to be "transformed" by such an award, and did not want to take sides in an East vs. West cultural struggle by accepting an award from a prominent Western cultural institution. After being awarded the prize he tried to escape the media by hiding in the house of Simone's sister Hélène de Beauvoir in Goxwiller, Alsace.
Jean-Paul Sartre in Venice in 1967
Though his name was then a household word (as was "existentialism" during the tumultuous 1960s), Sartre remained a simple man with few possessions, actively committed to causes until the end of his life, such as the May 1968 strikes in Paris during the summer of 1968 during which he was arrested for civil disobedience. President Charles de Gaulle intervened and pardoned him, commenting that "you don't arrest Voltaire." Sartre's and de Beauvoir's grave in the Cimetière de Montparnasse. In 1975, when asked how he would like to be remembered, Sartre replied:
I would like [people] to remember Nausea, [my plays] No Exit and The Devil and the Good Lord, and then my two philosophical works, more particularly the second one, Critique of Dialectical Reason. Then my essay on Genet, Saint Genet.... If these are remembered, that would be quite an achievement, and I don't ask for more. As a man, if a certain Jean-Paul Sartre is remembered, I would like people to remember the milieu or historical situation in which I lived,... how I lived in it, in terms of all the aspirations which I tried to gather up within myself.
Sartre's physical condition deteriorated, partially because of the merciless pace of work (and the use of amphetamines) he put himself through during the writing of the Critique and a massive analytical biography of Gustave Flaubert (The Family Idiot), both of which remained unfinished. He suffered from hypertension, and became almost completely blind in 1973. Sartre was a notorious chain smoker, which could also have contributed to the deterioration of his health.
Sartre died on 15 April 1980 in Paris from edema of the lung. He had not wanted to be buried at Père-Lachaise Cemetery between his mother and stepfather, so it was arranged that he be buried at Montparnasse Cemetery. At his funeral on Saturday, April 19, fifty thousand Parisians descended onto Boulevard Montparnasse to accompany Sartre's cortege. The funeral started at "the hospital at two p.m., then filed through the fourteenth arrondissement, past all Sartre's haunts, and entered the cemetery through the gate on the Boulevard Edgar Quinet." Sartre was initially buried in a temporary grave to the left of the cemetery gate. Four days later the body was disinterred for cremation at Père-Lachaise Cemetery, and his ashes were reburied at the permanent site in Montparnasse Cemetery, to the right of the cemetery gate.
Referencias: Names, Dates
RESUMEN:
Filósofo y escritor francés. Precoz lector de los clásicos franceses, en 1915 ingresó en el liceo Henri IV de París y conoció a Paul Nizan, con quien inició una estrecha amistad. Al año siguiente, el segundo matrimonio de su madre lo obligó a trasladarse a La Rochelle; hasta 1920 no regresó a París. En 1924 inició sus estudios universitarios en la École Normale Supérieure, donde conoció a Simone de Beauvoir, con quien estableció una relación que duraría toda su vida.
Task 6
-WEBQUEST-
Aquí les dejamos el link de nuestro webquest, esperemos que les guste:
http://www.aula21.net/Wqfacil/webquest.php
Por las dudas que hubiera algún problema para acceder al link les dejamos la versión PDF:
filosofia
http://www.aula21.net/Wqfacil/webquest.php#arriba 1/2
Introducción | Tarea | Proceso | Recursos | Evaluación | Conclusión | Créditos
filosofia
Autor: presocratico
E-mail: gonzalosobrera@gmail.com
Área: 1 Nivel: 2
INTRODUCCIÓN El objetivo es volvernos capaces de reconocer un argumento y
analizarlo, es decir reconocer las partes que lo componen.
TAREA Para ello deberán realizar una presentación en power point donde
se incluya el texto argumentativo, la decontrucción argumental y el
análisis de las premisas respecto a la veracidad de las mismas.
PROCESO En grupos de no más de 3 busquen en las páginas webs de los
diarios locales, las secciones editoriales (allí es más fácil
reconocer textos argumentativos)
Discutan en el grupo luego de haber seleccionado el texto y
planteen la conclusión que el autor del mismo intenta exponer
Rastreen las razones expuestas para sostener dicha conclusión
Realicen la descontrucción del argumento
Planteen posibles críticas a la o las premisas como forma de
derrotar la conclusión.
RECURSOS Aquí se adjuntan algunos links de los diarios más conocidos que
pueden consultar.
Diario el país - http://www.elpais.com.uy/
Diario el Observador - http://www.elobservador.com.uy/portada/
Diario la República - http://www.republica.com.uy/?
La Diaria - http://ladiaria.com.uy/
EVALUACIÓN Los criterios de evaluación serán los que trabajamos en clase a
partir del texto de Gonzalez Porta.
CONCLUSIÓN El correcto análisis de un texto argumentativo nos ayuda a
promover el correcto intercambio de ideas y opiniones propios de
una sociedad democrática.
Imprimir - Arriba
8/10/2014 filosofia
http://www.aula21.net/Wqfacil/webquest.php#arriba 2/2
(Página creada con 1,2,3 Tu WebQuest - http://www.aula21.net/)
Aquí les dejamos el link de nuestro webquest, esperemos que les guste:
http://www.aula21.net/Wqfacil/webquest.php
Por las dudas que hubiera algún problema para acceder al link les dejamos la versión PDF:
filosofia
http://www.aula21.net/Wqfacil/webquest.php#arriba 1/2
Introducción | Tarea | Proceso | Recursos | Evaluación | Conclusión | Créditos
filosofia
Autor: presocratico
E-mail: gonzalosobrera@gmail.com
Área: 1 Nivel: 2
INTRODUCCIÓN El objetivo es volvernos capaces de reconocer un argumento y
analizarlo, es decir reconocer las partes que lo componen.
TAREA Para ello deberán realizar una presentación en power point donde
se incluya el texto argumentativo, la decontrucción argumental y el
análisis de las premisas respecto a la veracidad de las mismas.
PROCESO En grupos de no más de 3 busquen en las páginas webs de los
diarios locales, las secciones editoriales (allí es más fácil
reconocer textos argumentativos)
Discutan en el grupo luego de haber seleccionado el texto y
planteen la conclusión que el autor del mismo intenta exponer
Rastreen las razones expuestas para sostener dicha conclusión
Realicen la descontrucción del argumento
Planteen posibles críticas a la o las premisas como forma de
derrotar la conclusión.
RECURSOS Aquí se adjuntan algunos links de los diarios más conocidos que
pueden consultar.
Diario el país - http://www.elpais.com.uy/
Diario el Observador - http://www.elobservador.com.uy/portada/
Diario la República - http://www.republica.com.uy/?
La Diaria - http://ladiaria.com.uy/
EVALUACIÓN Los criterios de evaluación serán los que trabajamos en clase a
partir del texto de Gonzalez Porta.
CONCLUSIÓN El correcto análisis de un texto argumentativo nos ayuda a
promover el correcto intercambio de ideas y opiniones propios de
una sociedad democrática.
Imprimir - Arriba
8/10/2014 filosofia
http://www.aula21.net/Wqfacil/webquest.php#arriba 2/2
(Página creada con 1,2,3 Tu WebQuest - http://www.aula21.net/)
miércoles, 13 de agosto de 2014
Task 3
[Socrates:] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far
our nature is
enlightened
or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den,
which
has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here
they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks
chained
so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented
by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a
fire
is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there
is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along
the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of
them,
over which they show the puppets.
[Glaucon:] I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all
sorts
of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone
and
various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are
talking,
others silent.
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -- will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
Far truer.
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
True, he said.
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
Not all in a moment, he said.
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?
Certainly.
Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
Certainly.
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
Certainly, he would.
And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
To be sure, he said.
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
No question, he said.
This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.
From http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/platoscave.html 13/08/14 21:51
3 cosas que se:
1- es una alegoria sobre la educacion
2-la escribió Platón
3-tiene como protagonista a Socrates
3 cosas que no se:
1-Quien es el interlocutor de Sócrates
2-De que material estan hechos los objetos que proyectan sombra en la caverna
3-Que le ocurre al sujeto que sale de la caverna
[Glaucon:] I see.
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -- will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
Far truer.
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
True, he said.
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
Not all in a moment, he said.
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?
Certainly.
Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
Certainly.
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
Certainly, he would.
And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
Better to be the poor servant of a
poor master, and to endure anything,
rather than think as they do and live after their manner?
Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than
entertain
these false notions and live in this miserable manner.
Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
To be sure, he said.
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
No question, he said.
This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.
From http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/platoscave.html 13/08/14 21:51
3 cosas que se:
1- es una alegoria sobre la educacion
2-la escribió Platón
3-tiene como protagonista a Socrates
3 cosas que no se:
1-Quien es el interlocutor de Sócrates
2-De que material estan hechos los objetos que proyectan sombra en la caverna
3-Que le ocurre al sujeto que sale de la caverna
miércoles, 6 de agosto de 2014
Task 2
Connectivism as a learning theory:
Social Context and Connectivism
George Siemens, who is considered as the precursor of Connectivism defines his
theory as a learning theory for the digital age (Siemens, 2004). Therefore, readers may
consider the emergence of Connectivism in a societal context, characterized by the
creation of economical values through networking human intelligence, in order to create
knowledge based products (Floridi, 2008). Considering this new scenario, where
technology plies a significative role, the old industrial era’s structure is transforming into
a society where “The information technology revolution has transformed modes of doing
business, the nature of services and products, the meaning of time in work, and the
processes of learning”( Fenwick, 2001, p. 4).
This process of change is named Globalization and is defined by Finger (2005) in
Merrian, Caffarella & Baumgartner (2006) “as a movement of economic integration, of
cultural homogenization, and of technological uniformization” (p.11).In this context,
learning strategies and educational institutions are changing dramatically. Educational
institutions are becoming part of the market, selling knowledge as a product in a
competitive environment. Consequently, many students are coming to consider
themselves as customers rather than learners (Merriam, et al., 2006). This atmosphere
of change also involves what, how and where people are learning. As a consequence of
the global economy work practices require a different training and preparation (Merriam,
et al. 2006).The continually technological development is forcing workers to continually
update their knowledge and skills. This process is known as “long life-learning”.
During the last several decades, the offering of online programs has increased
dramatically. Online based education has contributed to expand the opportunities of
learning in formal, no formal and informal settings (Merrian et al. 2006). As a result, the
ways of learning are changing. Educational programs are using technologies as an
essential tool in a learning experience. The importance of technology is describes by
Merriam,et al., (2006) as “Technology is integral to the global economy and has
contributed to, if not caused, the shift to an information society, which is creating
dramatic changes in the workforce” (p. 26). Some people assume these changes are an
opportunity for developing their life career with more flexibility and entrepreneurship. On
the other hand, Fenwick (2001) describes the increasing of privatization, deregulation,
reduction of social supports and temporization of workers as a consequence of the
global changes in economics and technological fields.
Within this complex and often contradictory environment emerges the
Connectivism as a new learning theory. Following is offered a summary of the main
ideas elaborated by George Siemens and his supporters, and also some criticism about
Connectivism is included.
According to George Siemens his developer, Connectivism is a learning theory
which is contextualized in a digital era characterized by the influence of technology in
the field of education. Currently Siemens is the Associate Director of Research and
Development at the Learning Technologies Centre at the University of Manitoba in
Canada.
Siemens is an influential thinker on the topic of education and technology, and
most of his works are found on a variety of different web sites, such us
www.connectivism.ca, www.elearnspace.org, www.wikipedia.com among others.
According to Siemens (2004) “learning is a process that occurs within nebulous
environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of individual”. In
addition, Siemens (2006) defines learning “as chaotic, continual, co-creation,
complexity, connected specialization, continual certainty”.
Connectivism defines learning as a continual process which occurs in different
settings including communities of practice, personal networks and work place task.
Siemens has defined the fallowing principles of Connectivism:
Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
Learning may reside in non – human appliances.
Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
Currency (accurate,up – to - date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning
activities.
Decision making is itself a learning process.
Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality (2004).
Siemens (2004) suggests that Connectivism is also concerned with how
corporations are facing the challenge of management of knowledge, what resides in
databases which need to be connected with the right people at the right moment. This is
a crucial difference between Connectivism and traditional learning theories.
http://proyectolenguasextranjeras.blogspot.com/2012/10/connectivism_9.html 06/08/2014 22:28
Know
|
Want to Know
|
learned
|
Teoria del aprendizaje
|
Que propone esta teoría
|
El conectivismo es una teoría del aprendizaje para la era digital que ha sido desarrollada por George Siemens y por Stephen Downes para explicar el efecto que la tecnología ha tenido sobre la manera en que actualmente vivimos, nos comunicamos y aprendemos.
|
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)