post 2

Dan Flood

Hamilton Holt suggested that college education should place “less emphasis upon information for its own sake, and more upon linking the subject studied with the life of the individual studying it.” I am immediately struck by his foresight to pragmatically shift the emphasis, away from the lecturing style of old, to the students. What we now take for granted in our liberal arts environment was at the time of its introduction a novel and revolutionary choice. Given his choices, it seems his philosophic approach to education could not have been more based in pragmatism. He completely rejected the modern philosophy of education of his time.

In contrast to prior educational and philosophic conceptions, Holt managed to further his goals by adopting John Dewey’s concordant position of incorporating practice within theory. The pragmatist in him might posit that the conventional way of interpreting the world empirically, merely through our senses and without contemplation of meaning, is counterproductive to any educational process. Hence, one might suggest that it is important to remember that although theories are useful, they were derived as a means of explaining the experiences of the theorists in the world around them. The Genius Reserve and its preservation effort offers up an unexploited, uncontaminated look into that world. Thus, an educational foundation, centered around the lecturing style of old, bogged down in theories, leaving little room for practice and experience, is counter productive the educational goals of the students and their teachers. The very most can be gained if our learned theories can then be applied and understood contextually. It seems to be a far more inclusive way of learning.

The Genius Reserve further embodies the shift away from modern philosophy and embraces the radical empiricism of its American counterpart. As Stuhr intimates, the experiences gathered in nature can now be viewed as, ‘transaction(s)’ rather than ‘interaction(s),’ “where the whole constitutes its interrelated aspects” (5, Stuhr). The relationship between “the subjective realm of the experiencer and the objective order of nature,” can now be viewed differently through American philosophy and the instrumentalist opportunities available at places like the Genius Reserve (4, Stuhr). What better way is there to connect meaning and truth in experience, than to view it in its most natural (no pun intended) form? Much like Dewey suggested, The Genius Reserve allows us to connect reality with experience philosophically by incorporating more than just a subject-object relationship with nature.

Given the time periods of both Hamilton Holt’s radical reorganization of education and the founding of the Genius Reserve, it seems only fitting that both came as examples of doing philosophy pragmatically. The Genius Reserve’s attempt to offer a natural ‘working laboratory’ to the Orlando community is a perfect opportunity for those seeking insight into pluralistic communal transactions. It is a hotbed for nature and its many species; any examination of which must now include more than just the subjective and objective perspectives. What surrounds those transactions is just as if not more important, than the concurrent interactions with the interdependent communal environment at hand. Through the Genius Reserve, we as students are offered the chance of doing pragmatism, even if we weren’t previously aware of its occurrence.

What could be more productive than students having lab portions of their psychology, computer science, and environmental studies classes, if the goal is to best understand and prepare them for the world they are about to enter? What better way is there to learn to critically analyze and discuss information than across a table, looking your company in the eye? Surely, nothing would have made Hamilton Holt more pleased than to know that students are taking advantage of the local resources (the Genius Reserve) and actually physically engaging themselves in their studies. For what good would our education be, if we do not choose to use it to engage our environment; what good will come of our environment, if we do not take heed of it in furthering our education?

(Apologies, this time I just decided to address both topics (a) and (b) as I went, as opposed to splitting them up, as I felt they tied in nicely together.)