I've been banned from PESA's Facebook page for raising questions about the aims of philosophers of education

PESA is the 'Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia'

PESA stands for the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia. About 2 years ago, I joined and was a member for a year, and was very excited to join and anticipated discovering other people who could see and discuss the obvious horrendous indoctrination that’s happening in schools, and perhaps even do something about it.

‘Philosophy’ is a word which announces it’s meaning by its construction - philo: love of; and, sophy: wisdom. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, but it stops short of theology.

For the purpose of this post, I also will stop short of theology.

Philosophy relies on human logic and analysis. I looked online for a definition of ‘philosophy’ and found this from ‘Oxford Reference’:

The study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth, etc. In philosophy, the concepts with which we approach the world themselves become the topic of enquiry. A philosophy of a discipline such as history, physics, or law seeks not so much to solve historical, physical, or legal questions, as to study the concepts that structure such thinking, and to lay bare their foundations and presuppositions. In this sense philosophy is what happens when a practice becomes self-conscious. The borderline between such ‘second-order’ reflection, and ways of practising the first-order discipline itself, is not always clear: philosophical problems may be tamed by the advance of a discipline, and the conduct of a discipline may be swayed by philosophical reflection (see also owl of Minerva). At different times there has been more or less optimism about the possibility of a pure or ‘first’ philosophy, taking an a priori standpoint from which other intellectual practices can be impartially assessed and subjected to logical evaluation and correction (see methodology). The contemporary spirit of the subject is hostile to any such possibility, and prefers to see philosophical reflection as continuous with the best practice of any field of intellectual enquiry. For the philosophy of various disciplines, see the titles of those disciplines.

I had expected that PESA would have have had an online discussion group so that people could ‘thrash out’ concepts in the Philosophy of Education - philosophically speaking, in a frank yet respectful manner, as I had learned to do at University (89-91, Waikato).

But, there was no online forum. How were the members to communicate? And dialogue?

The closest I could get to engaging other philosophers of Education was by their Facebook posts. And so, I began to engage on them with comments, when they uploaded posts inviting comments.

In 2023, the PESA conference in Auckland was approaching. I considered going because I was a member, but- I had been reading the PESA journals throughout the year which they had sent to me… and had begun to form an opinion, which was that their members were not sincerely ‘pursuing the truth’. Instead, they were discussing concepts which would belong in psychology, sociology, and instructional design - but not Philosophy. Hmmm.

How could it be, that I, as a 58 year old graduate from the early 90s, could see something so obvious? Was there something wrong with me? Or had ‘philosophy’ been corrupted and hijacked from the inside? Was I missing something? Or were they missing something?

I decided to phone an old friend who shall remain nameless, who is connected with PESA. We spoke at length about the changes in the philosophy of Education, in universities. My friend agreed with me that it had been changed from the inside and that woke ideology had invaded the Philosophy of Education in Universities, and that people generally speaking were too afraid to stand up to it because they could lose their jobs. This confirmed my thoughts and emboldened me to write on the PESA Facebook posts, with frankness. I was not employed by a university which was to my advantage.

However, my frankness was obviously received negatively by someone (or more) within PESA. I was warned by email that one of my comments a few months ago breeched their ‘community standards/guidelines’. They didn’t tell me how it breeched their community guidelines and I’m afraid I can’t remember what I wrote about and now I can’t access my comments, because I have since been banned. But at that point, they hadn’t stopped me from commenting on posts.

Two days ago (25 or 26 Nov), they posted an invitation for people to comment on how education could be used as a bridge between diverse cultures (I think- I’m going from memory), in this age of unrest. I found the question extremely odd because it revealed that there was not already a sincere ‘pursuit for the Truth’ or for ‘the highest good’… instead, it subordinated the Philosophy of Education to external environmental factors. As I read the post, I got the distinct feeling that it was a manipulative laying out of preliminary ideas with the intention of presenting a ‘new version of education’, with a particular design, which would ‘form a bridge between cultures’.

(Please note, I’m going from memory and may have got some words wrong.)

Let’s look again at the first part of that Oxford definition of philosophy:

The study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth, etc. In philosophy, the concepts with which we approach the world themselves become the topic of enquiry. A philosophy of a discipline such as history, physics, or law seeks not so much to solve historical, physical, or legal questions, as to study the concepts that structure such thinking, and to lay bare their foundations and presuppositions.

Just about everything that I have read from PESA contributors, is either psychology, sociology or instructional design. I thirsted for dialogue which investigated the concepts which structure our thinking, and for discussion about the foundations and presuppositions of those structures. But I couldn’t find anything.

Last year I emailed PESA to ask if anyone at the 2023 conference would be speaking about the gender ideology which was being pushed into schools. I received a reply naming a speaker whose focus was endorsing the ideology. I was astonished that the PESA members appeared not to be examining and raising questions about the foundations and suppositions of ‘gender ideology’.

I did not renew my membership, but continued to watch and engage in the Facebook posts.

So, what did I write that got me banned?

From memory…

I wrote two comments, because I wanted to attach two graphics which I couldn’t attach under one comment.

In the first comment, I wanted to communicate the danger of pursuing the relativistic thinking which was being expressed by the PESA Post…

The Woke message is that ‘truth is dead and everything is relative, and therefore also that the Philosophy of education is also relative, and ‘each philosophy’ is anchored in its own cultural tradition. In the Woke system, there is no such thing as a ‘universal truth’ and to even utter such a thing is considered as some form of colonial patriarchal oppression’, and this was implied in their post, and they seemed to be seeking endorsement of it.

I can say these things confidently because there was a time in my life (in my 20s) when I also thought that ‘everything is relative’ and that ‘truth is relative’. But the trials I experienced which resulted from those assumptions led me to see that there is such thing as absolute Truth.

I cautioned the reader that if they regarded philosophy as a pursuit of ‘absolute relativism’ instead of the highest good and of universal truth, then they had compromised the good name of philosophy and were not real philosophers but were ‘pretend philosophers’.

On reflection, I see that the contemporary ‘philosophers’ have no idea at all of ‘second order thinking’, as described in the Oxford definition above. They seem incapable- or more likely - unwilling- to deepen their enquiry into examining the foundations and presuppositions behind their motives. They prefer to keep their version of ‘philosophy’ skating between the subordinate disciplines of psychology, sociology and instructional design.

They revolt at the thought of ‘universal truth’. Perhaps that’s why I got banned.

I also wanted to communicate the immense implications of Dr Steven Stosny’s model of identity, and his warnings, for the design of education.

If you have been following my Substack, you’ll know that Dr Stosny is a respected psychologist whose lifelong observations have shown him that when people (including school children) have an identity which is anchored in the foundation of identity which comprises ‘Basic Humanity’ and ‘Character’, they thrive. They are secure, they engage easily and happily with other people. They don’t even think about ‘discrimination’ because they engage other people at the level of ‘basic humanity’.

This has immense implications for anyone designing education- which is of course one of the goals of Philosophers of Education. Here is the first graphic I shared in my PESA comment, from the flier which Penny Marie and I shared on the Let Kids be Kids 2024 Roadshow.

In my second comment on the PESA posts, I shared the second graphic, with text pointing out how the huge implications for designing education.

If the members of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia are sincere about wanting design education which results in young people who are equipped to thrive in the world, with a secure sense of self, then they need to know these insights- which do not come from me! These insights come from world respected Dr Steven Stosny. I’m just a messenger.

In case it’s not clear - Education needs to be designed to turn the thoughts and pursuits of children away from the top of the pyramid, to the base of the identity pyramid, to matters of basic humanity and character:

Basic humanity is encapsulated in ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’- also ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. An educational focus on basic humanity will dissolve racism, sexism and all the ‘isms’ into a puff of smoke, because an identity founded on ‘Basic Humanity’ instantly sees past all the exterior labels.

Teachers who model basic humanity will produce students who absorb and model basic humanity. Of course different students have different cultures and different languages, and that is glorious. But what is more glorious is when people engage one another - not through the exterior labels- but at the foundation of basic humanity.

Character includes aspects of the self such as having a deep sense of respect and appreciation for others; a dedication to truth, justice, morals, and other virtues. It includes being able to ‘see though’ the problems of another, and identifying the root cause of a difficulty, end engaging them with compassion and wisdom.

Teachers who model good character will produce students who absorb and model good character, themselves.

My comments on the PESA Facebook post were problematic for them and they advised my by email that I was banned.

Let’s take one last look at the Oxford Definition:

The contemporary spirit of the subject is hostile to any such possibility, and prefers to see philosophical reflection as continuous with the best practice of any field of intellectual enquiry. For the philosophy of various disciplines, see the titles of those disciplines.

Ah-hah. ‘The contemporary spirit is hostile to any such possibility’. That’s what’s happened. I’m old-school and I expect to dive deep into the foundations and assumption of concepts…. the ‘second order questions’. I find the failure to do so as insipid and totally compromising the real meaning of philosophy. That’s why I was banned.

PESA is having a conference in Christchurch New Zealand in a few days, from 4-7 Dec 2024. I hope that my post here may somehow make its way into discussion among the PESA members because my concerns are genuine and valid and ought not to be shut down.

If you’re a psychologist of psychotherapist, could you please kindly reply with a comment about this post and about Dr Stosny’s model, and its implications for the design of Education?

If you’re a philosopher of Education with sincere interest in the education of children, please consider responding here too.