ED521 J25 Sociology & Philosophy: Click or Clash, Module 1, Mini-Task 2 by Prof. Dauph

10 Philosophers in 8 Minutes

ponybirdmusic — 2024-12-23 01:01:52 UTC

Education in Society

ponybirdmusic — 2024-12-23 01:01:52 UTC

Instructions: Sociology & Philosophy:Module 1, Mini-Task 2

ponybirdmusic — 2024-12-23 01:01:52 UTC

Using your table/organized set of notes, Do you see any connections between the philosopher’s theories and the sociological perspectives? If they were at a dinner party, who would agree, and who might clash? For example, would David Hume’s beliefs about human motivation align with what the functionalist believed if they sat down to talk?

Pick one Philosopher & one Sociology branch to connect as a good match or to discuss as a bad clash. You have a choice of posting a detailed Venn diagram or one well-developed paragraph via PADLET to tell us who and what you are pairing together and what you think the result might be if these ideas were shared between the two people in a conversation.

Note Taking Suggestion:

ponybirdmusic — 2024-12-23 01:01:52 UTC

What if I need more information?

ponybirdmusic — 2024-12-23 01:01:52 UTC

You will have to do some additional searching for info and sources that are not included in the module. You do not need to cite them. If we follow these steps, and I pick Socrates, and I compare his philosophy with what Functionalists believe- I would need to find out more given how brief the videos are. I would search "Socrates beliefs on learning" or "Socrates beliefs on knowledge". I would also do the same search for Functionalists.

John Locke vs. Conflict Theory

2024-12-30 20:09:50 UTC

John Locke and the conflict theorists would absolutely disagree in a conversation about the role of philosophy and sociology in a society. John Locke was one of the greatest British philosophers at the end of the seventeenth century. He was also a political theorist and an advocate of the Scientific Revolution. Locke rooted his political beliefs in a few key principles such as separation of church and state, societal and governmental mutual agreements and the protection of the three natural rights; life, liberty and property. John Locke believed that human nature allowed people to be selfish, and that in a natural state, all people were equal and independent with the right to defend their own natural rights. He believed that the sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so a civil society was created to resolve conflicts with help from the government. John Locke is listed as a philosopher in the Enlightenment Era, which vastly differs from the beliefs of conflict theorists. Conflict theory is a perspective that views society as a constant struggle for power and resources between different groups. Conflict theorists believe that social change is largely driven by these conflicts that arise from unequal distribution of power and wealth while operating in a constant state of competition. This power distribution and competition often creates and exaggerates tension between dominant and marginalized groups within society. This would mean that social order is only maintained through domination and power, rather than unity and conformity. This is a perspective not held by John Locke, as he strongly believed in peaceful coexistence, natural rights and the idea of a social contract, where people can cooperate to form a society, rather than constantly conflicting with each other. These two perspectives would class during a conversation due to the difference in core societal beliefs and how individual should interact to establish and maintain a society.

Socrates vs. Critical Theory

2024-12-31 20:22:00 UTC

Socrates and Critical Theory are an excellent match when examining philosophers and branches of sociology. Socrates was a hugely influential philosopher who developed the socratic method- a method of discussion aimed to help scholars examine their beliefs and ways of thinking. In the socratic method, participants are encouraged to discuss not just what they think but why they think it. This is aligned with Critical Theory, which focuses on perspective as well as critical consciousness, which is the idea of examining oneself. Socrates is famous for his quote “an unexamined life is not worth living.” In essence, Critical Theory asks us to examine why things are the way they are and what power structures exist. Critical theory goes a step further than Socrates by encouraging us to fight against these structures and transform society. I think this is implied by Socrates but Socrates is less explicit in his advice than true Critical theory. Both Socrates and Critical Theory encourage people to do what is right, to have a focus on ethical and moral implications, and to critique our own role in the world. Socrates would absolutely agree with the Critical Theory branch of sociology.

Aristotle vs. Functionalism

2025-01-02 01:02:48 UTC

I would pair Aristotle with functionalism for a discussion that reveals their compatibility as a good match. After reading about Functionalism, I felt like I was seeing connections to Aristotle's concepts. Aristotle expressed the importance of purpose and order in society. He argued that every individual and institution has a specific role to play in achieving the common good. His concept of the "polis" as this ideal and organized community aligns with functionalism’s view that societal stability is maintained when all parts of society—such as institutions, norms, and roles—function cohesively. If Aristotle and a functionalist engaged in a conversation, they would likely agree on the necessity of each element in society contributing to a larger, harmonious whole. Aristotle says, “the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts” which is rephrased into the famous saying “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. Aristotle might bring his ethical perspective, emphasizing virtue and the development of moral character within the roles individuals occupy. While, the functionalist could provide empirical insights into how institutions like education or family contribute to social cohesion. Together, their dialogue would likely reinforce the idea that a well-ordered society depends on both purposeful individual action and the smooth functioning of its structures, highlighting a shared belief in societal balance and interdependence.

Socrates and Functionalism

2025-01-03 19:23:16 UTC

Socrates and Functionalism both care about creating a just society, but they have different ways of looking at how to make that happen. Socrates believed that the key to a better society was for individuals to truly understand themselves. He thought that by asking questions and deeply reflecting on our beliefs, we can gain wisdom and live better lives. For Socrates, when people are wise and virtuous, they naturally contribute to a more harmonious society. His focus was always on the individual, believing that personal growth and moral awareness were the foundation for a just world.

Functionalism, on the other hand, looks at society as a whole. It sees society as a complex system where every part whether it’s institutions, laws, or social roles works together to maintain balance and order. Functionalists argue that social stability comes from these systems functioning properly. If one part of society breaks down, like the education system or the economy, it can cause problems for everyone. While Socrates focused on the importance of personal wisdom and moral clarity, Functionalism is more concerned with how society’s structures influence behavior and ensure people fulfill their roles to keep everything running smoothly.

The main difference is that Socrates believed that real change starts within the individual people need to understand themselves and live morally to improve society. But Functionalists would argue that even the wisest individuals need strong systems in place to guide their actions and ensure stability. So while Socrates would focus on personal growth as the key to a better world, Functionalists would stress the importance of well-functioning institutions to maintain social harmony.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau vs. Conflict Theory

2025-01-03 23:48:26 UTC

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the conflict theory could be a good possible match when taking a deeper look into what they believe. For Rousseau, he believed that humans were born pure and in a state of innocence. He was huge in the 18th century about promoting children being born with this innocence which led to kids being seen as innocent and pure, like how humans were at the beginning of time. Overall he is known for his ideology of valuing the primitive state over the civilized state. It was all about what humans had to offer on the inside and saw external influences as ruining this innocence. These external influences included things like the government and the rapidly advancing society. This is similar to conflict theory in that society has tension and conflict due to the unequal distribution of resources. These conflicts can include riots, poverty, and revolutions to name a few. Conflict Theorists and Rousseau would agree that those who are above others are corrupt by large sums of money and power. Rousseau and Conflict Theorists are huge on revolutions, with Rousseau supporting the idea of challenging the rights of kings and Conflict Theorists seeing revolution as a result of challenging ideas between a power and the people. To conclude, both Rousseau and Conflict Theory emphasize the corruption and inequality in a civilized society. While Rousseau focuses on how society can ruin the born innocence of a person, conflict theory focuses on the power conflict in society.

Confucius VS Conflict Theory

2025-01-04 18:44:45 UTC

If we were at a dinner party, Confucius and conflict theorists would be a bad clash. Confucius valued harmonious living and emphasized the importance of personal ethics and morality. He also valued the principles of loving others, self-discipline and self-restraint. Confucius believed that society’s well-being depends on mutual responsibility between subordinate and superior. In contrast, conflict theorists believe that class conflict between the working class and the elite is necessary for a better society. They interpret society as being in a constant state of struggle for power between social groups. They promote inequality and conflict in issues like class, race, and gender. Regarding learning and knowledge, Confucius believed that education was a lifelong process of self-improvement and learning. The life-long learning journey enables one to discover potential and self-realization. He would peacefully dispute that people should learn for the sake of “self” not “others”. He believed that reflection intertwined with learning could foster cognitive and social development, enabling the learner to behave well and contribute to society’s development. On the other hand, conflict theorists would argue that education maintains social inequality and preserves the power of the elite in society. Conflict theorist believe that education develops the skills and values needed for the working class to accept positions as lower members in society. They view education more negatively, claiming it is a powerful means to maintaining a fixed power structure with a docile work force for capitalists. Confucius views education as a social benefit and opportunity for all.

Rousseau vs Functionalism

2025-01-05 17:43:08 UTC

Jean-Jaques Rousseau would disagree with the idea of functionalism in education because he believed that children should have an education that is fueled by their own interests, since he strongly believed that children should be able to make their own decisions. His writings reflect how important he thought it was that children’s education is tailored to their developmental appropriateness, and one of the key aspects of functionalism in education is to prepare students to become active members of mainstream society. Rousseau’s approach to education, heavily influenced by his own upbringing, contradicts this heavily structured functionalist model; where the functionalist model is asking society to place expectations and pressures on the student, Rousseau is arguing that children should be able to decide the course of their education and experience what the world has to offer outside of the classroom. Rousseau does not agree with the formal education that functionalism is based on. He believes that children should be able to decide their own fate, whereas the functionalist ideas require them to fit into a specific box.

Sartre and Interpretivism

2025-01-06 03:38:06 UTC

Jean-Paul Sartre is best known for being a father of existentialism in which he believes that to be human and to go through the lived experience, is to be conscious. He believed in the free will of the individual, that all humans are responsible for their actions and to create their own purpose in life. While these philosophical beliefs don't perfectly align with interpretivism, there are some ways in which the two overlap, and Sartre might've found some points with which he would agree, or 'click.' Interpretivism emphasizes uncovering meaning from individual accounts and understanding society from the perspective of each personal account. Existentialism also places emphasis on the individual and that they are born with the opportunity to exercise free will, thereby to participate in society as they choose. Sartre's theories revolve around individuals creating meaning through their coming into consciousness and their social actions. Meanwhile, interpretivism seeks to understand human behavior through the interpreted meanings which individuals garner from their societal experiences. Additionally, interpretivists understand they will not be able to obtain every person's account of societal observations, but operate under the notion that every single individual's will differ, no two are alike. This is inherently similar to Sartre's beliefs that every person makes their own choices and shapes their life through these choices. While Sartre's existentialism and focus on free will does not perfectly agree with interpretivism's mission to understand the social world through personal accounts, both align in their emphasis on the individual experience and the acknowledgement that perspective on society differ person-to-person. Sartre was more concerned with theorizing about inner consciousness, while interpretivists are in constant pursuit of understanding solely the social world.

Rousseau, Social Contract, and Conflict Theory

mehossler — 2025-01-06 19:11:04 UTC

I think that Rousseau and conflict theorists would see eye to eye about many challenges of the modern education system. Rousseau believed in a social contract between the government and its citizens. Within that social contract citizens are obligated to obey the government, and the government is obligated to protect the freedoms and equality of the people. If the government fails to properly protect individual rights, it is the duty of the people to dismantle that government and correct its deficiencies. Conflict theorists argue that the public education system works to perpetuate existing social and economic inequalities because of the race, ethnicity, gender, and class biases inherent in the system that prevent certain kinds of students from having an equal opportunity to excel. Conflict theorists would believe that according to Rousseau's theory the public education system is not fulfilling the social contract, because it is not ensuring the equality of students. Conflict theorists would likely support Rousseau’s idea that state institutions that fail to protect the equality of citizens need to be dismantled by those citizens, because they view public education systems as examples of the state's failure to address social and economic inequalities and how they are transmitted.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau vs. Critical Theory

2025-01-06 21:48:15 UTC

I believe that Jean-Jacques Rousseau would pair up well with critical theory because of their shared critiques of social inequality. Rousseau’s famous line is “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” He believed that men were born free, but are tied to society’s constraints. He also believed that society is to blame for humanity’s problems. Society also put hierarchical levels on men who were born “equal.” I believe that both Rousseau and critical theory push for extreme social transformation to fix society. Both see issues within society. Critical theories include critical race theory, feminist theory, etc. Critical race theory is something I think Rousseau would stand behind. It states, in short, that systemic racism is based on societal factors rather than natural. Rousseau believes that men are naturally good, but corrupted by society. This backs up the idea that racism is taught, not born. Additionally, Rousseau criticized inequalities within society, such as private property and wealth. Critical theorists do this as well. While these two do not line up perfectly, I believe that they would have common ground amongst each other to discuss. It is hard to imagine what Rousseau would think now as he lived in the 1700s. His idea of “free will” may be different than what we imagine it to be. Additionally, Rousseau was a strong believer in heavy governmental control. He thought that people should comprise a small amount of their freedom for great government. I am not sure if critical theorists would agree with this idea.

John Locke vs. Conflict Theory

2025-01-07 01:38:33 UTC

John Locke was an English philosopher who lived from 1632 to 1704. He believed men have the right to life and liberty under natural laws that are used under the peoples protection. Locke believed that a limited government would best protect people's rights. Locke believed everyone was born into freedom as long as they followed the laws emplaced by rulers. Locke also proposed the idea that “the mind was a blank slate”, he believed that everyone was born with no knowledge. He believed in order to gain knowledge people had to go through real life experiences. Locke focused on three main aspects such as how children should be educated, who should rule over us, as well as allowing people to believe in any religion in which they chose. I do not think that Locke has similar viewpoints to the conflict theory. The reason I think this is because Locke thought that any person should be able to believe in any religion in which they choose. He believed in the idea of freedom of belief and toleration. He did not want religions to be a competitive aspect of life and he wanted to accept diversity in the world he lived in. However, the conflict theory goes agains his beliefs. The conflict theory believed that everyone should believe in the same religion and those that didn't follow the social norm would be at a lower hierarchy. This differs from Locke's point of view because he believes everyone should be able to believe in the religion they they aspire to believe in without any conflict at hand.

Slattery- Socrates vs. Functionalism

2025-01-07 02:06:25 UTC

I think that Socrates shares some common beliefs as present in functionalism, but ultimately their beliefs are rather different. Socrates emphasized critical thinking and self-discovery which we know as the Socratic Method, a process of questioning and dialogue to uncover truth and foster moral virtue, wisdom, and independent thought. If you were to ask Socrates why education was important he would say that education was for personal enlightenment, often challenging societal norms. In contrast, functionalists viewed education as a social institution designed to promote stability and cohesion by teaching societal values, norms, and skills necessary for individuals to contribute to the functioning of society. This directly contrasts what Socrates says because they view education as something that is beneficial for society as a whole. They believe that education is aimed to reinforce existing social structures and prepare individuals for their roles within them. Both Socrates and functionalists would agree that education is very important but they would have some significant disagreement on its purpose. Socrates focused on personal ethics and questioning, whereas functionalists emphasized maintaining social order through institutionalized education systems.

Socrates vs. Latent Functions in Education

2025-01-07 02:36:05 UTC

‘I know that I know nothing.’ A statement to question itself from the one whose philosophical message is to ask questions where there are questions to be asked. We should not remain content with assumptions or with authority. Socrates values that an unexamined life is not worth living. In relation to education, Socrates believed in the importance of dialogue and questioning as a means of learning, known as the Socratic method. Nothing is given simply, it is a vital skill to rely on our power to think critically. No one else can see our thoughts or guide us in processing information to retain it. The Socratic method encourages students to think deeply and arrive at our own conclusions rather than merely accepting information.

I would like to sit at the dinner table and hear Socrates'' thoughts on the vast latent functions in structural functionalism in education. As latent functions are the unintended consequences of education, we are left to think about the next unwritten or unintended consequences/rules of classroom and school. Socrates' theory and this sociological perspective make a great match as you can ask the many questions of why and what if in the ways schools are structured. Why do we have a basic form of ‘specials’ (p.e., music, art) structured in the school day? What is the purpose of early morning school days if we are already learning the importance for 9-5 work days (can it be 10-6)? I would expect this conversation to have a lot of great takeaways, but also a lot of conversations that might seem to be going in circles with no answer or ideas for our ‘why’s.’

Rousseau and Functionalism

2025-01-08 00:54:12 UTC

Jean Jaques Rousseau would not completely agree with the ideas of Functionalism, so long as that society adheres to every single person's liberties. This was the underlying dilemma in his flagship written work, The Social Contract. In it, he claims that all people are considered free through the natural law until they must give up their freedoms, little by little, so that they may participate in society. To combat this philosophical issue, Rousseau posits the idea of the “general will” of the people – a majority consensus between participants in a society to let a governing body restrict smaller liberties. This is, in my interpretation, the border between restrictive government oversight and the populous’ freedom through the natural law (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2023). After reflecting over the two schools of thought, one aspect of a functionalist's approach to our country’s school system is the practice of Credentialism – one cannot simply get up one morning and decide to perform open heart surgery without the credentials to do so because it infringes on the safety of the one needing open heart surgery. Alternatively, Rousseau’s school of thought fully embraces one’s liberty to attend a medical school to gain the skills necessary to perform open heart surgery. Furthermore, one topical issue in our school systems that would be in the middle of this clash between schools of thought is the right to be recognized by the gender one identifies with. Although many school systems in predominantly liberal states adhere to this liberty, there are many transgender students that aren’t so fortunate to attend those schools in our country. Unfortunately thus, those children suffer discrimination in their schools because the “general will” of the society that school is in believes in a rigid definition of gender. All of this is to say that, if Rousseau is presented with certain specific dilemmas pertaining to our school system, he would agree that the natural law takes precedence and in others, the general will dictates what is just and what isn’t.

Functionalism vs. Satre

mrabuffo — 2025-01-08 13:45:40 UTC

Jean Paul Satre's beliefs on education are based upon his maxims of personal responsibility and choice. His education philosophy would more than likely include much more freedom of the student to choose the topics that they wish to learn. He would likely design curriculum to fit the student's need, rather than have any subjects forced upon them. While it is likely that Satre would have agreed with Structural Functionalists that education needs to teach all students similar things (i.e reading, writing, math, science, ect.) he may disagree that all students need to learn the same exact material in the same exact way. Structural functionalists tend to take a utilitarian approach to learning; the needs of the many outweigh the individual learning needs of the few. They would believe that teaching a well rounded curriculum would lead to a better educated society. Satre would disagree with this, in this fictional dinner party where an ideal meets a man. Satre would believe that tailoring the learning needs of a population to what they need to know would take away any personal responsibility for learning. By forcing the students to learn certain subjects in a certain way, Satre would believe that the students may not be able to build critical thinking skills and agency for one's learning.

Hume & Conflict Theory

2025-02-04 23:20:52 UTC

Hume proposed that presuming to know the original qualities of human nature was to be disregarded, so I think that the idea in conflict theory that social change merely comes with the ebb and flow of outside factors that cause inequity and competition do align fairly well. Hume also claimed that human beings' nature is to follow passion rather than reason, and 'passion' could easily be defined as the desire to fulfill one's wants and needs, which is the very basis of conflict theory. Both Marx (the supposed foundational theorist behind this social theory) and Hume would likely agree that exploring and studying what we can about the causes and effects behind human nature would tell us much about the needs that we must satisfy and the demands that cause social change, for better or worse- in order to preemptively try to improve or adjust how society might behave overall. Hume's reliance on the senses to draw conclusions is very similar to the idea within conflict theory that peoples' behavior is solely based on needs and wants and whether or not they can fulfill them. The idea of hierarchy might be where the two differ, however; Hume was very pro-free-will, and his philosophy gathered around the self and one's natural right to pursue things based on passions, while Marx and conflict theory in general tend to lean towards larger societal values and ways to improve things in a more general, but less hierarchal, fashion.