Reconstruction in Philosophy by John Dewey

Reconstruction in Philosophy Reviews

• 
  Miles

  John Dewey is my intellectual hero, so taking up one of his works is always a distinct pleasure for me. There is no other thinker at this point in my life who can challenge and delight me the way Dewey does; his philosophy is deeply contemplative but also distinctly practical, and his insights reflect the intellectual milieu of his particular moment in time (early 20th century) while also addressing perennial problems that hamper human communities regardless of their place in history.
  
  Reconstruction in Philosophy is not one of Dewey’s finest or most famous works. It is an illuminating if rather cursory snapshot of Dewey’s post-WWI, pre-WWII ideas about the future of philosophy. As found in his other works, Dewey sees the project of reconstructing philosophy as largely a matter of breaking down traditional barriers between abstract and practical knowledge. His tireless efforts to demonstrate the interpenetration between philosophical theory and concrete action, as well as his unequivocal rejection of philosophy’s historical search for Absolute Truth, reveal Dewey as a figure both rooted in and well ahead of his time.
  
  In order for the practice of philosophy to play an active role in shaping healthy human communities, it must overcome what Dewey perceives as the failings of the traditional contemplative life: “Historic intellectualism, the spectator view of knowledge, is a purely compensatory doctrine which men of an intellectual turn have built up to console themselves for the actual and social impotency of the calling of thought to which they are devoted” (117). This “impotency” springs from a deep misunderstanding of how human problems arise. Traditional philosophy has viewed problems as a product of our inability to grasp the true nature of things, to achieve a state of understanding so all-encompassing that it stands outside the world, judging from a privileged perspective of Pure Reason. Conversely, Dewey argues that problems arise from the complex relationship between fluctuating environmental conditions, the basic needs and desires of human communities, and the natural biases of individuals. This is hardly a controversial claim today, but we do well to remind ourselves that this is so precisely because of Dewey and other like-minded thinkers.
  
  If philosophy’s proper role is not to grasp any Absolute Truth, then what is it? Dewey posits philosophy as our best tool for reconstructing human experience. The idea of what constitutes “reconstructed experience” is an intentionally broad one; it includes myriad forms of narrative play and human labor through which “The concrete environment is transformed in the desired direction” (120-1). Reconstructed experience is no mere distraction or salve to help humans bear quotidian stress, but the result of accumulated knowledge and energy with which we intelligently go to work reshaping the world according to desire. In this sense, philosophy is impossible to pursue without engagement with scientific findings and applied skills. Because scientific understanding and methods for establishing and maintaining human communities are always implemented in particular conditions and subject to change over time, philosophy must play the role of analyzing and distinguishing between better and worse perspectives and modes of accomplishment, thereby pointing the way forward when the proper path seems unclear: “The prime function of philosophy is that of rationalizing the possibilities of experience, especially collective human experience” (122, emphasis his).
  
  In a modern context, the realization of Dewey’s vision can be understood in part as the summation of human knowledge and aspirations that have become accessible through a wide variety of media. Anyone engaged in honest inquiry into ways of living successfully, as well as the recording and dissemination of lessons learned or skills acquired (creating opportunities for others to reconstruct experience in their own fashions), can play a meaningful role in philosophical exploration. This assertion––that the practice of philosophy can be broadened to include almost anyone––is perhaps Dewey’s most radical and hopeful claim. It reformulates our notions about who is qualified to contribute to philosophical discourse, and prompts us to judge the value of human institutions and associations by the ways in which they hinder or promote the flourishing of experiential reconstruction, or, as Dewey puts it: “What sort of individuals are created?” (198).
  
  A crucial element of Dewey’s reconstruction is the application of scientific principles to our understanding of moral and social life. I suspect he’d be pleased to learn that, nearly a century on, that process is well under way. However, it has proved considerably more difficult than Dewey anticipated, and the question of how to properly apply scientific thinking to aspects of human life not easily assessed through quantitative means is still very much a live one. Dewey does not seem to presage the problem of interpretation that allows for divergent conclusions drawn from a single set of data, nor does he adequately apply the confounding effect of psychological biases (of which he is well aware) to the reality that scientific data is collected, interpreted, reported and applied by fallible individuals. This may become less true as methods for data collection and processing become increasingly automated, but that will not emancipate us from a scientific landscape colored by the flaws and virtues of its human inhabitants.
  
  Reconstruction in Philosophy also suffers from a somewhat contradictory interpretation of freedom. While Dewey’s mantra that freedom is synonymous with knowledge is all to the good, he also glosses over potential conflicts between individual and collective freedom: “Since society can develop only as new resources are put at its disposal, it is absurd to suppose that freedom has positive significance for individuality but negative meaning for social interests” (208). This position is galling given that Dewey lived through the first Gilded Age, and stings with even greater potency now that 21st century citizens are living through a second. History has made clear that combinatorial instantiations of human will (states, corporations, unions, religions, etc.) often reach a point of critical mass after which their actions reflect the collective’s self-perpetuating interests, which are no longer necessarily consonant with the interests of its constituents. Individuals, for their part, are also prone to habitual behaviors that are not necessarily conducive to the furtherance of communal goods.
  
  Freedoms granted to certain individuals and groups can and do have concretely negative consequences for others. The zero-sum game may not be the only game in town, but it is quite possible for freedoms to have “positive significance for individuality but negative meaning for social interests.” Dewey is correct that maximization of individual freedom is crucial to the maintenance of vibrant human communities, but offers little insight about how and at what point such freedoms ought to be checked to preserve the public good. The extent to which institutions ought to be restrained in order to preserve individual liberties is also unclear. Dewey would no doubt argue that these matters can be resolved only by analyzing the particulars of a given situation––a sincere if rather unsatisfactory rejoinder. However, as these questions comprise what is perhaps the single most difficult problem of modern governance, it is uncharitable to hold Dewey responsible for their resolution.
  
  This is an excellent read for anyone seeking to deepen his or her knowledge of Dewey’s corpus, but I’d recommend Human Nature and Conduct––a longer and more comprehensive text––for those new to him. Dewey is a progressive of the highest order, and his thinking is shot through with the conviction not only that human life is improving and improvable, but that to take part in this ameliorative process despite tremendous obstacles is amongst our highest callings. Reconstruction in Philosophy is special to me insofar as it illuminates and reinvigorates my personal transition from academic pursuits to more mundane and practical ones. In my continuing search for ways to positively transform my environment, I strive to never lose sight of the sublime dance between thought and action––a dance Dewey understood most profoundly.
  
  This review was originally published on my blog,
  words&dirt.
• 
  Vinicius Apolinario

  Um bom livro para introduzir a visão mais ampla de Dewey sobre a história das ideias.
  O autor é pioneiro no modo como utiliza as ciências naturais e sociais na sua reflexão filosófica.
  Um dos problemas, especialmente no final do livro, é o caráter muito generalista de Dewey. Para mim, acaba perdendo um pouco de profundidade. Por outro lado, claramente temos outras obras mais importantes e precisas do autor.
  De modo geral, Dewey é uma grande inspiração para pessoas que querem levar a sério uma visão de mundo naturalista.
• 
  Rana Yamout

  ميزت المذاهب الفلسفية بين عالمين للوجود ، عالم اعلى وعالم ادنى . قابل العالم الاول عالم التراث الشعبي الديني المجاوز للطبيعة فكان في صورته الميتافيزيقية عالم الوجود الاعلى ، وكانت المعتقدات الدينية الصادقة بذاتها المصدر النهائي لكل الحقائق الهامة وكل قواعد السلوك الاجتماعي . ووقف العالم الادنى في مواجهة هذا العالم العادي التجريبي يقابل عالم الخبرة اليومية ويتصف بالنسبية والتغير المستمر والزوال ، يهتم به العلم . الفلسفة لم تنشأ من مادة فكرية خالصة ومن موضوعات ثقافية عقلية صرفة ، وإنما نشأت من مادة اجتماعية ووجدانية .
  استمر الفكر الحديث بعد انفصاله عن الفكر القديم وفكر العصور الوسطى وتحرره متمسكاً بالاعتقاد القائل بوجود عقل كلي يخلق العالم ويشكله ، انتشر هذا التصور الحديد للعقل وطريقة عمله بين كل المثالين القرن السابع عشر والثامن عشر من انتموا للمدرسة الانجليزيةامثال " لوك" و"باركلي" و"هيوم" او الى المدرسة الديكارتية . بات واضحاً ان العالم المعروف لا يتم تشكيله الا عن طريق الفكر الانساني ، توقفت المثالية الميتافيزيقية واصبحت معرفية وشخصية . كان هذا التطور مجرد مرحلة انتقالية ، لم يستطع الداعون لهذا التطور تشكيل مفهوم جديد يخلو من التصورات القديمة ، مازال الفكر القديم قوياً وراسخاً بصورة تمكنه من فرض نفسه في اللاشعور الانساني . لقد فشل تيار الافكار ، اذ جاءت هذه الافكار مختلطة بالفروض المسبقة والافكار الكامنة في التراث العلمي والسياسي والاجتماعي التي لا تتلاءم معها ، وكان الغموض الذي شمل الفلسفة الحديثة نتاج محاولة الجمع بين شيئين يستحيل الربط بينهما منطقياً واخلاقياً.
  ظهر عاملان أديا الى ظهور مفهوم جديد للخبرة ولعلاقتها بالعقا او بالتحديد لدور العقل في الخبرة ومكانته . العامل الاول التغير الذي حدث في الطبيعة الفعلية للخبرة وفي مضمونها ومنهجها . والعامل الثاني التطور الذي حدث في علم النفس نتيجة اعتماده على علم الاحياء وأدى الى امكانية حدوث تركيبة علمية جديدة لطبيعة الخبرة . كان الفيلسوف العقلي ينكر دور الحس في المعرفة ولا يعتبره عنصراً اساسياً من عناصرها ، يعد الاحساس كما يقول الفيلسوف الحسي بداية للمعرفة ، بمعنى ان صدمة الشعور بالتغير والاحساس به تمثل الباعث الضروري للبحث والمقارنة التي تؤدي في النهاية الى تحقيق المعرفة .
  كان على الفلسفة ان تبدل طبيعتها والا اختارت الانفصال الكامل عن روح العلم ، كان عليها انتهاج منهجاً علميًا وتصبح طبيعتها عملية فاعلة وتجريبية. لم يعد الواقع شيئاً جاهزًا ونهائيًا بل بات الوقائع مادة قابلة للتغيير . تغير مفهوم المثالي والعقلي لم يصبح العقل عالماً كامل الوجود ، بات العالم المثالي تمثلات ممكنة للعالم القائم بالفعل يمكن استخدامها كمناهج لتعديله ووسائل لتحسينه واعادة تشكيل صورته .
  تسعى عملية إعادة البناء الفلسفي الى تحديد هذه القوى والاهداف وتحريرها من كل المعتقدات الموروثة المتناقضة معها . تحدد عملية إعادة البناء الفلسفي الشروط التي يمكن ان تتعاون خبرة الماضي والذكاء المبدع في ظلها ويتفاعلان مع بعضهما البعض.
• 
  Rachel Williams

  Dewey's book is an attempt to articulate an alternative vision of what philosophy would look like if it completely eradicated all and not just some remainders of our ancient, superstitious mode of thinking and was instead reconstructed according to the philosophical-scientific movement known as American Pragmatism. Dewey's reconstructed philosophy would be less sterile and abstract and more focused on diligently applying intelligent, scientific thought towards solving the various ills that plague us as humans in all their concrete variety. Dewey emphasized that science has progressed faster than scientifically based moral philosophy, and our scientific study of ends needs to desperately catch up to our scientific study of means. Clear, engaging, and endlessly insightful; Dewey is a joy to read and a model thinker for anyone wishing to avoid sterility.
• 
  Illiterate

  Good, albeit polemical, overview of his pragmatism.
• 
  Alfresco

  Dewey is at his best being critical of both the rationalist and empiricism schools. Using Bacon's axiom knowledge is power, Dewey uses sciences ability to wrestle with dogma that the world is a closed system. For Dewey science allows us an avenue to reconstruct philosophy to be practical and open to the changing social landscape we live in while attempting to offer solutions to problems we face. His call for what he terms intelligence is a little suspect but moves away from a Hegel self consciousness though he retains the Hegelian idea of institutions preserving the rights of the individual under the banner of democracy. Dewey definitely is a refreshing read and sets up with Kierkegaard in that philosophy must wrestle with the subjective life of our condition.
• 
  Jeffrey Albrecht

  Dewey criticizes philosophers for failing to approach current issues, preferring instead to continue dragging out age old topics that have little relevance to currently pressing issues.
• 
  Jeffrey

  What is remarkable about this book, which is a series of lectures delivered in Tokyo a year after the end of WWI, is just how bold, radical, and courageous Dewey attacks the commonly held assumptions of classical and modern philosophy. The 1st two lectures are barn burners, in fact I was not sure I was reading Dewey at first because he comes out swinging and it feels like he wrote the first two lectures with a mission to stop pretending that it is OK to allow the people who practice and make philosophy to continue the fiction that what they are engaging in is anything other than fantasy, and that this fantasy they engage in has real world consequences that reinforce hierarchical power dynamics that enable powering over others, appropriating their freedom, and just how conveniently the philosophical method enables cover and a cowardly intentionally obfuscating vocabulary to justify unaccountability and inaction.
  
  After reading this, and placing the reaction of the modern pragmatic thinking coming out of Canada and Oxford which devalue Dewey’s contributions to pragmatism, it makes perfect sense, as the modern project of trying to rearticulate pragmatism from a logic based perspective of Pierce, C.I. Lewis, Hillary Putnam et al, is a reaction against Dewey’s insistence (challenge really) that they be accountable for the theories they produce. It is obvious why Dewey is not a central figure in modern philosophical debates, because Dewey demands accountability and the project of modernity can not remain stable, nevermind grow, unless there's an entire cadre of academic philosophers producing work that legitimates the intentional immiseration of billions of humans for the profit of a few thousand families on the planet. Modern pragmatists like Cheryl Misak and David Rondel are doing a great disservice to the American Pragmatist project and are enabling the continued and ever expanding appropriation of human beings' lives for the benefit of an elite class. For shame. For shame.
  
  This book is required reading not only for any philosopher, but it should be part of every high school required reading when studying American history.
• 
  Readius Maximus

  I really enjoyed reading John Dewey. Compared to some of the enlightenment thinkers he is very easy to read. Being an American and a pragmatist could be helpful too not sure.
  
  I really liked his emphasis on a "active" philosophy and really liked his critique of the rationalist and empiricist schools. I am not an expert but they seemed pretty on point for the most part. A lot of the philosophy of the enlightenment seems to me to be so abstract and ideal that it's hard to see how it affects every day life. John Dewey and the Pragmatists fix that for the most part.
  
  There is two types of fantasy. Rational is passive fantasy of of the ideal. Whilte, scientific is active fantasy of what could be.
  
  I like his emphasis on humility and constantly looking for ways to improve and test if your hypothesis is true. Reminds me a little of Jordan Peterson.
  
  For Dewey there is no universal truth. Trust is "that which guides us truly". Truth is active and applied to certain specific things. Fixing things is the ultimate end.
  
  The downside for me is he does a great job of telling you how to fix things and encouraging you to fix things but he does not say why to fix things other then they need to be fixed. It appears to me that if you combined this philosophy with some kind of universal Good that would indicate what to fix and why as well as directing what 'fixed' actually entails.
  
  In our day we have destroyed all universals in our society so there is nothing to agree on because everyone has their own ideas of what to fix and what fixing actually looks like. We are now suffering from the absence of the things Dewey hated most.
  
  
• 
  Rasmus Tillander

  Turhemmastakin äijästä vois tehä gradua.
• 
  Akseli Koskela

  Filosofian uudistaja! Deweyn ajattelu yksilön asemasta yhteiskunnassa on virkistävää.
• 
  Barry Mikhael

  Getting why Dewey is considered a pragmatist. A good relatively shorter reading to get a peek on the universe of Dewey’s philosophy.
• 
  Spilloz

  Date le mie scarse conoscenze filosofiche mi è difficile esprimere un parere sulle posizioni di Dewey in merito alle finalità e ai metodi della filosofia da lui auspicati.
  In sintesi mi pare un tentativo di dare "nuovo lustro" all'indagine filosofica indicando il metodo sperimentale delle scienze naturali come nuovo paradigma metodologico, e nel contempo fornire una giustificazione epistemologica all'idea di democrazia.
  Ho trovato molto interessante e "intrigante" la sua ricostruzione della produzione filosofica fino a Bacone: fin qui essa, ripiegandosi su se stessa nella costruzione di ordini metafisici ed essendo l'uomo ancora privo degli strumenti per disciplinare le forze naturali, è tesa ad esorcizzare l'imprevedibilità del divenire.
  La scienza interviene a rimettere in moto la conoscenza oggettiva e cumulativa delle scienze naturali, mentre la filosofia deve restargli stretta al fianco per dotare l'uomo di una moralità via via adeguata ai suoi progressi.
• 
  Bob Woodley

  A easy-to-read and pithy summary of Dewey's pragmatism across philosophical domains (ethics, metaphysics, social relations, etc). He discards the accretions of 20 centuries of philosophy, and presents a contemporary approach suitable for America in the 20th century. He eschews absolutes in favor of particulars and moves us away from the realm of nit-picking over imaginary metaphysical cosmos in favor of dealing with problems in the here and now.
  
  A great writer, with good pacing and clear exposition.
• 
  Matthew Dayton Cavallaro

  Just a caveat about my rating: the philosophical arguments and ideas presented in this book would get five stars from me, because not only do I find them appealing, I also think they are right. However, the writing style seems to me extremely clunky, and I would give it only three stars if I were being generous. Hence the four star rating from me.
• 
  William A Warner Jr

  This book helped throw a cleaver into the philosophical mindset I was in because Dewey find a practical solution for philosophy. Its great to sit and think about the ideal all day and debate about the perfect state but it's better to know how to use philosophy realistically to help one live a better life. A life of action. This also inspired me to brush up on Plato and Aristotle.
• 
  Bishr

  تنبيه : قليلا ما يكون تقييمي للكتاب بناء على مدى اتفاقي مع المضمون المطروح، وإنما على مدى تنشيطه واستفزازه للذهن واحترامه لي كقارئ.