Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:

You keep asking what I would teach. Without an agreement on the aim of education the result is just secular indoctrination. The point is that as of now only a precious few in education are open to the importance of opening the mind to "high matters".

But the aims of education do in fact address what is to be taught. What is to be taught is not nowadays restricted to facts and skills but includes and is based upon attitudes towards ideas, towards physical and health education, towards citizenship and ethics, and towards expressive ability and getting on with others.

The above is my opinion and what I have learned from educationists during my life.
If you yourself were my student I'd be unable to teach you anything until you ceased to be so arrogant in your ignorance.

arrogant
[ar-uh-guh nt]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud:
an arrogant public official.
2.
characterized by or proceeding from arrogance, or a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement:
arrogant claims.

The courage and need to seek the truth as opposed to the imagined security and comfort of accepting indoctrination

Simone's elder brother André Weil the famous mathematician in a 1932 letter

It will now be I think 23 years that you made your entry into the phenomenal world to create the greatest pain in the ass for rectors and school directors

You would have rejected Simone as being too arrogant and would have encouraged her to be reeducted into the acceptable norms of the times and restrict her thought to arguing them. I, of course, would have applauded and encouraged the pain in the ass in her need for truth.

[Greta]

It's hard to know whether Nick really is that egotistical or if it's a cover for a near-catastrophic sense of insecurity. I'm thinking the latter because, if he truly believed himself superior, he would not be slumming it with the motley crews of philosophy forums but mixing with those worthy of, and responsive, to his lessons.

Also, insecurity would explain his angry, desperate clinging to his views and fear of even considering others' ideas for a moment. Not once in years on forums have I seen him acknowledge learning from another - that someone else knew something of value that he didn't. It seems to him that he's the only one thinking deeply about life because he ignores everyone else's deep thoughts.

Whatever, it seems he has found a coping mechanism. Life is hard and we all need our coping mechanisms.

[Arising_uk]

You keep asking what I would teach. Without an agreement on the aim of education the result is just secular indoctrination. ...

So what is the agreement you wish to reach? Be specific.

The point is that as of now only a precious few in education are open to the importance of opening the mind to "high matters".

Give me an example of these 'higher matters'? Be concrete.

...

There are no more "high matters" They have been abandoned in favor of scapegoating and casting blame. Discussing the techniques necessary to once again honor the attraction to "high matters" is serious and simply shouldn't be subjected to the usual petty attacks. There is too much at stake. Concern for "high matters" are now secondary to casting blame and creating snowflakes. If this is what dominates education, why discuss it? Just agree that "yo momma sucks" and let it go at that. Reserve such discussion for those willing to admit the human condition as the source of personal and societal unrest and the foundation for acquiring the humility for opening to the big picture and allowing the intellect to arouse and awaken human emotions. Perhaps many of the young who are now lost souls can become more than crazed things with no respect for life much less objective human meaning and purpose..

Well maybe in your country but then it's always been of a mercantile mindset but over here in the UK we've been introducing Philosophy into the junior schools, made it an A level subject in the senior schools and it's always been a degree subject so some of our students, if they are of the mind, are considering matters higher. Although that's not to say it's all rosy here as for the past few decades we've followed the Yank obsession with testable stats and Philosophy as a degree subject was decimated at degree level in the institutions catering for the lower academic classes but with the above I think that'll be changing. But you know what, I don't think you mean Philosophy but Theology when you talk about 'higher matters' as I think you make the mistake of conflating the Greek 'Good' with your 'God' but you are rather coy about this.

By the by you really need to work on your christianess as all this 'snowflake' stuff is just abuse and a bit ironic given you yourself only ever stay in your safe-place when it comes to ideas.

[Nick_A]

It's hard to know whether Nick really is that egotistical or if it's a cover for a near-catastrophic sense of insecurity. I'm thinking the latter because, if he truly believed himself superior, he would not be slumming it with the motley crews of philosophy forums but mixing with those worthy of, and responsive, to his lessons.

Also, insecurity would explain his angry, desperate clinging to his views and fear of even considering others' ideas for a moment. Not once in years on forums have I seen him acknowledge learning from another - that someone else knew something of value that he didn't. It seems to him that he's the only one thinking deeply about life because he ignores everyone else's deep thoughts.

Whatever, it seems he has found a coping mechanism. Life is hard and we all need our coping mechanisms.

Attributed to Henry Thomas Buckle:

His thoughts and conversation were always on a high level, and I recollect a saying of his, which not only greatly impressed me at the time, but which I have ever since cherished as a test of the mental calibre of friends and acquaintances. Buckle said, in his dogmatic way:

“Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas.”

Greta expresses the typical secular progressive attitude which limits ideas to established pre-conceptions and conditioned responses. Discussing ideas with an open mind requires a type of egoistic freedom - a willingness to admit ones ignorance. This attitude is most comfortable condemning people. It is least comfortable with ideas which open the mind. In schools it leads to metaphysical repression and sometimes even spirit killing. It is called progress

I received a reply from Richard Oxenberg, the author of the linked article. I asked questions and he responded. He was able to discuss ideas in a way impossible for you. Such an exchange would get in the way of your need to discuss people and point fingers; a favorite exercise for secular progressives. Your way - not mine..

[Nick_A]

You keep asking what I would teach. Without an agreement on the aim of education the result is just secular indoctrination. ...

So what is the agreement you wish to reach? Be specific.

The point is that as of now only a precious few in education are open to the importance of opening the mind to "high matters".

Give me an example of these 'higher matters'? Be concrete.

...

There are no more "high matters" They have been abandoned in favor of scapegoating and casting blame. Discussing the techniques necessary to once again honor the attraction to "high matters" is serious and simply shouldn't be subjected to the usual petty attacks. There is too much at stake. Concern for "high matters" are now secondary to casting blame and creating snowflakes. If this is what dominates education, why discuss it? Just agree that "yo momma sucks" and let it go at that. Reserve such discussion for those willing to admit the human condition as the source of personal and societal unrest and the foundation for acquiring the humility for opening to the big picture and allowing the intellect to arouse and awaken human emotions. Perhaps many of the young who are now lost souls can become more than crazed things with no respect for life much less objective human meaning and purpose..

Well maybe in your country but then it's always been of a mercantile mindset but over here in the UK we've been introducing Philosophy into the junior schools, made it an A level subject in the senior schools and it's always been a degree subject so some of our students, if they are of the mind, are considering matters higher. Although that's not to say it's all rosy here as for the past few decades we've followed the Yank obsession with testable stats and Philosophy as a degree subject was decimated at degree level in the institutions catering for the lower academic classes but with the above I think that'll be changing. But you know what, I don't think you mean Philosophy but Theology when you talk about 'higher matters' as I think you make the mistake of conflating the Greek 'Good' with your 'God' but you are rather coy about this.

By the by you really need to work on your christianess as all this 'snowflake' stuff is just abuse and a bit ironic given you yourself only ever stay in your safe-place when it comes to ideas.

OK, here is a basic philosophical question. What is the human condition as it is taught in UK schools?

[Greta]

“Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas.”

... Greta expresses the typical secular progressive attitude which limits ideas to established pre-conceptions and conditioned responses.

Ironically, I only started engaging you on this forum because you were bad mouthing me behind my back on this forum for MONTHS after we had differences on another forum. "Talking about persons" ...

Besides, I don't find you to be nearly as interested in ideas than many here, and you are very quick to make unprovoked personal attacks. Look at your thread here - just demonising "secular progressives". Once again: "talking about persons".

On the rare occasion when you have managed to post about ideas without "talking about persons" (very much) I have engaged. You are simply too blinkered to understand that I am obviously interested in spirituality without being a believer in anything, and will probe and test anyone with that interest to better understand where they are coming from. Even you, with your crazy ego and closet megalomania, come across some interesting material, but when I try to engage seriously with you, you keep replying by simply attacking my character and claiming I don't understand, without ever explaining why. Talking about persons ...

Despite decidedly hanging yourself on your own petard, the Buckle quote is actually just pretentious blowhard social gaming, setting up a hierarchy that he no doubt felt well qualified to sit atop. What a surprise

In truth, it's not the subject matter that counts (no matter what elitist notions seem to occur to whimsical egotists). What matters more than Buckle's lazy broadbrush categories is the nature of the particular aspect/s of the subject matter in question, its and your relationships, and how one approaches it.

[Belinda]

Greta wrote:

Life is hard and we all need our coping mechanisms.

My favourite analysis of coping mechanisms is Michael Leunig's "Love and fear. Fear and love" which he illustrates in a cartoon. I'll try to find and copy it.

[Arising_uk]

...
OK, here is a basic philosophical question. What is the human condition as it is taught in UK schools?

You literally are incapable of answering a question in a straight manner aren't you Nick_A and it's this that make me so suspicious of your motives.

Here's a philosophical response, what do you mean by 'the human condition'?

[Belinda]

Nick wrote regarding my attitude towards Simone Weil:

You would have rejected Simone as being too arrogant and would have encouraged her to be reeducted into the acceptable norms of the times and restrict her thought to arguing them.

It's you who arrogates to yourself knowledge which you lack; you don't know my attitude.

Actually I have a romantic nature and consequently I tend to like rebels.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Ironically, I only started engaging you on this forum because you were bad mouthing me behind my back on this forum for MONTHS after we had differences on another forum. "Talking about persons" ..

No. You made accusations against me. When I asked for explanations and proof you refused since it was a lie. When you accuse, you have the obligation to prove. If you cannot, it is a lie.

Besides, I don't find you to be nearly as interested in ideas than many here, and you are very quick to make unprovoked personal attacks. Look at your thread here - just demonising "secular progressives". Once again: "talking about persons".

No. You accuse people like those you imagine to be Christians. I have criticized a philosophical agenda I believe to be harmful to the essence of Man since it is a philosophy which denies what is essential for the development of the inner man.

On the rare occasion when you have managed to post about ideas without "talking about persons" (very much) I have engaged. You are simply too blinkered to understand that I am obviously interested in spirituality without being a believer in anything, and will probe and test anyone with that interest to better understand where they are coming from. Even you, with your crazy ego and closet megalomania, come across some interesting material, but when I try to engage seriously with you, you keep replying by simply attacking my character and claiming I don't understand, without ever explaining why. Talking about persons ...

No. It is normal in the secular world to throw around words like spiritual, art, love, God, and other similar ideas without any sense of either scale or relativity. Would you have any idea of the difference between the energy of the spirit descending from above and heightened emotional energy arising from below? People call reactions to both spiritual making the word meaningless.

You are caught up with agendas that do not let you impartially experience both sides. Could you for example explain both sides of the question which compares women’s rights with women’s obligations in regards to sustaining a free society? No, you will argue your agenda. If you cannot impartially witness both sides of a given polarity, how can you be open to philosophy the goal of which is wisdom as opposed to egoistic victory?

[Nick_A]

Nick wrote regarding my attitude towards Simone Weil:

You would have rejected Simone as being too arrogant and would have encouraged her to be reeducted into the acceptable norms of the times and restrict her thought to arguing them.

It's you who arrogates to yourself knowledge which you lack; you don't know my attitude.

Actually I have a romantic nature and consequently I tend to like rebels.

Simone Weil was a seeker of truth. She wasn't a rebel. Do you know the difference?

[Greta]

No. It is normal in the secular world to throw around words like spiritual, art, love, God, and other similar ideas without any sense of either scale or relativity. Would you have any idea of the difference between the energy of the spirit descending from above and heightened emotional energy arising from below? People call reactions to both spiritual making the word meaningless.

You are caught up with agendas that do not let you impartially experience both sides. Could you for example explain both sides of the question which compares women’s rights with women’s obligations in regards to sustaining a free society? No, you will argue your agenda. If you cannot impartially witness both sides of a given polarity, how can you be open to philosophy the goal of which is wisdom as opposed to egoistic victory?

You seem to have a problem with women, Nick. I've never demanded to control men's bodies (only occasionally borrow). I've never demanded to know what rights and obligations men have in society as if being born was a contractual obligation. No, unlike you, I just see men and women as human. Equivalent. A team, rather than protagonists fighting for control. There are protagonists amongst us, of course, but many men and women don't have much attitude about these things and take a live and let live approach.

Of course you play "true Scotsman" with spirituality. It appears that you cannot comprehend that other people are as sentient as you. You so trust your own senses so that you interpret the relative opacity of others' individual consciousness as a lack, like a person in a windowless house who believes that only muffled sounds exist outside.

[Nick_A]

No. It is normal in the secular world to throw around words like spiritual, art, love, God, and other similar ideas without any sense of either scale or relativity. Would you have any idea of the difference between the energy of the spirit descending from above and heightened emotional energy arising from below? People call reactions to both spiritual making the word meaningless.

You are caught up with agendas that do not let you impartially experience both sides. Could you for example explain both sides of the question which compares women’s rights with women’s obligations in regards to sustaining a free society? No, you will argue your agenda. If you cannot impartially witness both sides of a given polarity, how can you be open to philosophy the goal of which is wisdom as opposed to egoistic victory?

You seem to have a problem with women, Nick. I've never demanded to control men's bodies (only occasionally borrow). I've never demanded to know what rights and obligations men have in society as if being born was a contractual obligation. No, unlike you, I just see men and women as human. Equivalent. A team, rather than protagonists fighting for control. There are protagonists amongst us, of course, but many men and women don't have much attitude about these things and take a live and let live approach.

Of course you play "true Scotsman" with spirituality. It appears that you cannot comprehend that other people are as sentient as you. You so trust your own senses so that you interpret the relative opacity of others' individual consciousness as a lack, like a person in a windowless house who believes that only muffled sounds exist outside.

Again, you are closed to the question. You are caught up in matters of control and women’s rights. You are not even aware of what women’s obligations in terms of sustaining a functioning free society could mean. You can only fight about control. A real lover of philosophy is willing to experience other sides of the question including women’s obligations. Being fixated on rights the necessity for voluntary obligations is too repulsive for you to open your mind to.

Appreciating the source of spirituality has nothi9ng to do with true Scotsman. It is a matter of understanding and experiencing qualities of energy and their effects on the psych of Man

John 3

3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Forget about believing anything but can you be open intellectually to the two directions of being referred to. It isn’t a matter of Scotsman but just being at least intellectually open to the difference between qualities of energy initiating first from below and finally descending from above.

[Greta]

No. It is normal in the secular world to throw around words like spiritual, art, love, God, and other similar ideas without any sense of either scale or relativity. Would you have any idea of the difference between the energy of the spirit descending from above and heightened emotional energy arising from below? People call reactions to both spiritual making the word meaningless.

You are caught up with agendas that do not let you impartially experience both sides. Could you for example explain both sides of the question which compares women’s rights with women’s obligations in regards to sustaining a free society? No, you will argue your agenda. If you cannot impartially witness both sides of a given polarity, how can you be open to philosophy the goal of which is wisdom as opposed to egoistic victory?

You seem to have a problem with women, Nick. I've never demanded to control men's bodies (only occasionally borrow). I've never demanded to know what rights and obligations men have in society as if being born was a contractual obligation. No, unlike you, I just see men and women as human. Equivalent. A team, rather than protagonists fighting for control. There are protagonists amongst us, of course, but many men and women don't have much attitude about these things and take a live and let live approach.

Of course you play "true Scotsman" with spirituality. It appears that you cannot comprehend that other people are as sentient as you. You so trust your own senses so that you interpret the relative opacity of others' individual consciousness as a lack, like a person in a windowless house who believes that only muffled sounds exist outside.

Again, you are closed to the question. You are caught up in matters of control and women’s rights. You are not even aware of what women’s obligations in terms of sustaining a functioning free society could mean. You can only fight about control. A real lover of philosophy is willing to experience other sides of the question including women’s obligations. Being fixated on rights the necessity for voluntary obligations is too repulsive for you to open your mind to.

It could not be more obvious that my post is the complete opposite to "matters of control and women’s rights".

What is wrong with you??

[Nick_A]

You seem to have a problem with women, Nick. I've never demanded to control men's bodies (only occasionally borrow). I've never demanded to know what rights and obligations men have in society as if being born was a contractual obligation. No, unlike you, I just see men and women as human. Equivalent. A team, rather than protagonists fighting for control. There are protagonists amongst us, of course, but many men and women don't have much attitude about these things and take a live and let live approach.

Of course you play "true Scotsman" with spirituality. It appears that you cannot comprehend that other people are as sentient as you. You so trust your own senses so that you interpret the relative opacity of others' individual consciousness as a lack, like a person in a windowless house who believes that only muffled sounds exist outside.

Again, you are closed to the question. You are caught up in matters of control and women’s rights. You are not even aware of what women’s obligations in terms of sustaining a functioning free society could mean. You can only fight about control. A real lover of philosophy is willing to experience other sides of the question including women’s obligations. Being fixated on rights the necessity for voluntary obligations is too repulsive for you to open your mind to.

It could not be more obvious that my post is the complete opposite to "matters of control and women’s rights".

What is wrong with you??

Greta you wrote:

I cannot equate the kind of theocracy that you would promote with any kind of democracy.

I'd know what would happen to women's rights under a "democracy" of yours. I expect they would entirely lose control of their lives and bodies, which would be controlled by theocratic men.

Reads like a women's rights control issue to me with my kind of theocracy being the scapegoat. A complete denial of women's obligations necessary to support a free society. Just blame.