Often in my own social circles, and in my writings, I have bemoaned the limited view our society has regarding intelligence and the nature of learning.
I find that one of the most detestable things to come to the field of learning, and our culture’s understanding of it is that an education can only be derived from an authority. And what this notion produces is an idea of learning that is completely devoid of any creative process.
Rather than teaching lessons, teachers come to teach facts. They do not reveal to us the manner and method to come to the truth, but more often than not, only the truth which consensus has at the present time come to.
To recapitulate, what is lacking is critical thinking.
However, I think it is insufficient to say that the only thing lost with the absence of critical thought is the ability to decipher fact or fiction. This relies on a purely logical understanding of thought, which leaves deserted pathos and many portions of ethos.
I would never advocate for a society, or an instrument of society and culture which serves only to produce consensus and logical agreement, this is one of the lowest forms of truth-seeking in my eyes, and holds little value to producing what is more important, which is an ethical and intelligent society.
Facts are for trivia games, what is important is people capable of understanding the world, themselves, and their companions.
While I greatly admire the autodidactic effort, and think it is worthy of much praise, there is a similar reason which keeps me from entirely endorsing it.
One well educated person does not a good society make. At best you might achieve Plato’s Kallipolis, but even he knew hoping for that was hoping too far. (And besides it would be a bit dishonest to reduce it to just that.)
The present situation is that autodidactism is insufficient, and our educational institutions are more interested in profit seeking and consumer satisfaction in the job market than they are in furthering the moral and aesthetic character of individuals and societies.
And I feel perhaps there may be a third alternative. In my complaints of previous times I posited that there are three aspects to education. The first is the authoritative, that being the book reading and institutional pedagogy which supplies the basic factual knowledge and world-understanding necessary for the mind to be spurred into action. The second is the autodidactic, wherein this action is identified within the self, is engaged, honed, and where one develops an idea of the kind of thinker they want to develop themselves into, and the kind of principles and methods which interest them. And the third is the social learning. I haven’t a concrete term for it, but I am partial towards poly-didactism or syn-didactism.
In my view, this polydidactism arises when a union of people, sharing some intellectual end, make a collaborative and sympathetic effort to better understand a subject or subjects purely with the ideas and methods available to them.
It engages the facilities of thought, rhetoric, critical thought, and the sympathetic imagination (attempts to justify another’s arguments to oneself).
And additionally, it brings up all of the people in participation, not just a student or students. Furthermore, even if no satisfying end is produced in the discourses, the understanding and learning of the process towards such efforts is still expanded in all the participants. Not to mention the obvious interpersonal benefits which may arise from this kind of collaborative process.
Already this process occurs all over, but it is my interest to find a way to systematize its engagement, because I think it is through this process, and the expansion and universalization of it, that we can begin to mend the moral and pedagogic ails presently seen in our society.
By systematization, I should make apparent that I do not mean regulation or enforcement, rather to understand the system of the polydidactic process, so that a culture or social current can be produced which develops in as many people as possible the polydidactic muscle.
We do not seek to force new growth into the field, bringing in alien and predatory species, but rather to find the measure of water, sun, and nutrition to bring about the flourishing of what is already present, but languishing.
Having expressed my current sentiments and intentions, I feel this particular work is complete, even if the idea is not. I think it would be a disservice to the notion I am trying to develop if I were to do it on my own. Nor would I presume such an effort to produce the kind of results I would consider effective with respect to the aims previously established. (Also I have to eat some delicious dinner and play games with a friend!)
...
The variations of didactism which I produced for myself in attempting to produce a term for the subject on which I have written: interdidactism, multi-didactism, poly-didactism, socio-didactism, syn-didactic.