A Modust Proposal

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:51 pm

If youth is wasted on the young, philosophy is wasted on the old.. The time to teach it is when people can use it.. Anyone older who learns philosophy has already wound the mainspring of their lives and are set upon their course, and have wondered into it, and touched it in passing.. Philosophy should be taught to hasten and organize education.. If knowledge is judgement then life is no series of impression, or facts learned by rote; but is the ability to judge between this and that..

Without the language of philosophy I struggled to sort out morality because in my youth, morality was little evident.. People struggle today with morality because it is not taught and cannot be known by example.. Morality, as Socrates' Good- cannot be conceived of, and so cannot be taught.. Yet people are moral without a lesson because they are so -irrationally, and so pre-rationally.. It is emotional bonds, and irrational bonds which makes one moral.. It is as impossible to cut ethics loose from philosophy, and yet the tools of philosophy are useless for the understanding of morality.. If people talk about morality, many choose to invoke religion when religion is only a parasite on morality.. In the middle ages, with a cut of a razor religion was removed from philosophy, but morality as ethics is a fee both claim..

Friends; this is not child's play.. Philosophy is the basis of all we know in life to be good, for to have good. people had to go at it with a purpose.. This is like tying ones shoes, and no one would wish their child to trip, and everyone allows children to be tripped by their process of thought. I am not proposing that people be taught what to think for that is what we have.. Rather; people, children must be handed the tools of thought and not forced to find them through the maze of misinformation.. To teach philosophy is to teach people how to think..
Napoleon called those who were studying ideas: Ideologues.. Yet it is ideas as discrete elements of knowledge that must be taught.. What is an idea? It is not purely analogy; but mostly it is.. What we know, we can make, reproduce, and teach.. Nature teaches, we learn, we recreate nature better to serve us.. Between thought and thing lies an abyss of difference, Heterogeneity; and yet there are areas of agreement: Homogeneity, with the bridge between these two being Analogy.. Duns Scottus. -If every child learned to judge reality by forming an analogy of reality, this would speed and organize education.. Children are like the near sighted gazing at the stars.. What do they see?? If you cannot tell stars from space you will never see time as a translation of space..

Children are incredibly near sighted. They see what is in front of them well.. If they are inclined to waste time as we see it, it is because they cannot conceive of it, and to relate it to space is hardly an accurate symmetry.. The true relation of time is to life; that is: A moral rather than a physical analogy.. If youth is a waste of time, then that is our fault because now WE know better.. If we choose to allow youth to be a social event rather than a milestone of learning, then that is by default.. We are not trying to give children what they need.. We do not fail entirely by allowing the social aspects of youth to dominate because social relations will dominate through all of life.. Our success and happiness depends upon the ability to relate, our relationships.. And people are like the blind who cannot see beyond their own sense of touch.. Some of us get along well that way.. Children knowing little feel much.. As a political and social reality; as Nietzsche and Freud among others went to pains to point out: people are not rational.. They are never taught to be rational, to reason and to judge the quality of their reasoning objectively.. We braille our ways through life, and those with the best senses win..

Children who have no philosophy are left to grasp at the straws of knowledge while drowning in a pool of confused impression.. We may know what we feel.. We do not see how to feel with others, or make others feel as we feel.. We are trapped in individuality when loneliness is the disease of our age..No part of this, no matter how much it leads to unhappiness is dangerous.. What is dangerous is so many living a lonely, isolated and vulnerable existence.. Hitler was not the first person to understand that the masses can be moved by emotions.. The madness of the many is a weakness for any society because it can be turned with equal energy on friend or foe alike.. War is the export of injustice.. Injustice long endured is madness, but the moral bonds we accept and feel while sneered at by some keeps us at peace with exploiters and willing to turn ourselves against all of humanity- for a feeling- of nation..To change the world we need only change the way people feel about it.. This is the specter of ruin, of war, of disease, destruction and misery.. People are hung by their heartstrings.. I know people will feel.. I want them to think..

Today our children are not being taught how to think, and without thought, knowledge is given, but is never certain.. If knowledge is virtue it is because it inhibits action.. It is a brake on stupidity.. Aristotle said that the line between vice and virtue divides all of mankind.. From my perspective, that line divides reason from morality as well as humanity.. Pure thought is plasma, and cannot be touched..Morality without thought is dangerous, but thought without morality is death.. Even if you think of education as a social and moral experience, a chance to exercise and strengthen the bonds of society, you still need to give people the protection of reason.. We learned in the last century a tyranny of the ideal.. We are still trapped by one of those ideals.. When children are handed their ideas fully formed, as a definition in a dictionary which they cannot question they are put in a dangerous, even a precarious position.. Murder by the many of millions was accomplished with no better tool than an ideal no one could question.. Children must learn to write dictionaries instead of reading them.. Philosophy gives to every individual the ultimate freedom of questioning authority, even intellectual authority; and even the authority of an accepted ideal.. Every idea is a kernel of truth.. The analogy between thought, and thing must be true; and children in education are set free to find that truth..

Impenitent
Posts: 2196
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Impenitent » Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:14 pm

corrupting the youth has always been a dangerous pursuit...

-Imp

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:07 am

Impenitent wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:14 pm
corrupting the youth has always been a dangerous pursuit...

-Imp
I would sooner make water wet.. It isn't knowledge that makes people insufferable, but ignorance..

Nick_A
Posts: 3766
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Nick_A » Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:11 am

Hello Charm

A thoughtful thread. I'd like to ask you two questions:

1: Are ideals harmful by necessity? For example My ideal society is a free society which furthers creating individuals. In contrast the ideal communist society which I oppose is one which creates indoctrinated entities serving the whims of the state. Do you find anything harmful about my ideal?

2. Do you differentiate between morality and conscience? Morality as I understand the concept refers to secular indoctrination. Political philosophy is directed at creating secular expressions of morality while often blaming it on some sort of God.
"To set up as a standard of public morality a notion which can neither be defined nor conceived is to open the door to every kind of tyranny." ~Simone Weil
I think we would agree that this is what happens.

Conscience is one of these concepts that quickly becomes denied by secular authority since it suggests a higher source than secularism. Conscience is soul knowledge. it is remembered.

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm
........................Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature..................
Plato shows why man made conceptions will ultimately fail. They don't touch soul knowledge

Philosophy IMO is one of the means for awakening conscience in human beings. Of course the world struggles against it since awakening to conscience opposes indoctrination.
1940
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Reason and conscience must cooperate but will they?
1943
"No matter how idealistic and necessary a group is, each member must first be loyal to his conscience.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 73. – conversation in August 1943)
Consider how little we understand consciousness. We understand conscience even less. Will we survive in such depths of justified of ignorance? who knows

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:22 am

Charm wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:51 pm
If youth is wasted on the young, philosophy is wasted on the old.. The time to teach it is when people can use it.. Anyone older who learns philosophy has already wound the mainspring of their lives and are set upon their course, and have wondered into it, and touched it in passing.. Philosophy should be taught to hasten and organize education.. If knowledge is judgement then life is no series of impression, or facts learned by rote; but is the ability to judge between this and that..
It is said, there are as many definitions of 'what is philosophy' as the number of people who attempted to define it.
So there is probable millions or perhaps billions of definitions [explicit or implicit] of "what is philosophy" out there.

As with the above, I believe you have a very confined and specific definition of 'what is philosophy.'

I have read of hundreds of definitions of 'what is philosophy' from notable philosophers and all other sources.

I noted all this whole range and varied definition of "what is philosophy" is reducible to a generic and common essence which I labelled as Philosophy Proper driven by an inherent and intrinsic drive for philosophy, wisdom, etc. which is parallel with human evolution.

Since it is intrinsic within humanity, we need to extract its universal principles and apply philosophy-proper to nurture the person from day of birth.

Analogy:
Philosophy-proper is analogically like the subject of "management" where humans from day one has been practicing the principles of management naturally [to various degrees] as an intrinsic drive. What we teach in management schools are the Principles and theories we extracted to be taught to others more efficiently.
While we have been very efficient with 'management' humanity is still groping with the inherent drive and principles of philosophy-proper.

Once we are able to extract the principles of philosophy-proper there is no question of differentiating its application between babies, young and old. Philosophy-proper would be a natural human drive for all of humanity regardless of age.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:22 am
Charm wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:51 pm
If youth is wasted on the young, philosophy is wasted on the old.. The time to teach it is when people can use it.. Anyone older who learns philosophy has already wound the mainspring of their lives and are set upon their course, and have wondered into it, and touched it in passing.. Philosophy should be taught to hasten and organize education.. If knowledge is judgement then life is no series of impression, or facts learned by rote; but is the ability to judge between this and that..
It is said, there are as many definitions of 'what is philosophy' as the number of people who attempted to define it.
So there is probable millions or perhaps billions of definitions [explicit or implicit] of "what is philosophy" out there.

As with the above, I believe you have a very confined and specific definition of 'what is philosophy.'

I have read of hundreds of definitions of 'what is philosophy' from notable philosophers and all other sources.

I noted all this whole range and varied definition of "what is philosophy" is reducible to a generic and common essence which I labelled as Philosophy Proper driven by an inherent and intrinsic drive for philosophy, wisdom, etc. which is parallel with human evolution.

Since it is intrinsic within humanity, we need to extract its universal principles and apply philosophy-proper to nurture the person from day of birth.

Analogy:
Philosophy-proper is analogically like the subject of "management" where humans from day one has been practicing the principles of management naturally [to various degrees] as an intrinsic drive. What we teach in management schools are the Principles and theories we extracted to be taught to others more efficiently.
While we have been very efficient with 'management' humanity is still groping with the inherent drive and principles of philosophy-proper.

Once we are able to extract the principles of philosophy-proper there is no question of differentiating its application between babies, young and old. Philosophy-proper would be a natural human drive for all of humanity regardless of age.
I certainly do have a sense of what philosophy is.. Philosophy is the love of knowledge, and then what is knowledge.. I agree with Kant that knowledge is judgement, but what is that? Primarily, knowledge is classification.. If a physicist can define a Gluon against a Muon, it represents knowledge.. Every definition is a concept, and every concept a bit of knowledge, and every concept is conserved, which is the essential understanding behind all philosophy; that which makes possible all higher reasoning, what Aristotle called Identity.. All knowledge is conserved..

What children understand for the most part unconsciously should simply be made conscious, and taught consciously..

What distinguishes ethics from philosophy is physics.. All Physical forms have being and meaning.. Moral forms have only meaning.. Ethics does not become meaningless without physics, but physics can become meaningless without ethics.. Ethics defies the reasoning that helps us to make sense of the physical world.. It is rather insight that helps us to unravel these spiritual qualities upon which all of our lives depend.. It is impossible to teach morality, impossible to even conceive of morals correctly, and in talking of morals to think of moral knowledge is impossible.. Since, in a general sense one can be moral with no great understanding, or understand morality without being moral- this may be all we can expect.. In addition, all should distinguish between Ethos and Pathos which are closely connected, and essential in the character of a human being.. Some people can distinguish between ethics and Pathos, and show one quality without the other.. I know many examples of people who are moral in regard to their own, and incapable of sympathy for humanity in general..

In the teaching of children I would gloss ethics, and instead educate in the sense that education is possible.. When people teach, they teach concept, and when people learn, they learn concepts, and when people think, they manipulate concepts... We can make philosophy more complex, even infinitely complex with every branch of philosophy, but basically, at it's most basic, philosophy involves forms which are all forms of relationship which can be categorized, and understood as abstractions.. Abstractions, forms, concepts, ideas are our lens upon the world, and if we do not give them to children when they are capable of using them, we are blinding them when their sight is most essential..

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:36 am

Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:22 am
Charm wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:51 pm
If youth is wasted on the young, philosophy is wasted on the old.. The time to teach it is when people can use it.. Anyone older who learns philosophy has already wound the mainspring of their lives and are set upon their course, and have wondered into it, and touched it in passing.. Philosophy should be taught to hasten and organize education.. If knowledge is judgement then life is no series of impression, or facts learned by rote; but is the ability to judge between this and that..
It is said, there are as many definitions of 'what is philosophy' as the number of people who attempted to define it.
So there is probable millions or perhaps billions of definitions [explicit or implicit] of "what is philosophy" out there.

As with the above, I believe you have a very confined and specific definition of 'what is philosophy.'

I have read of hundreds of definitions of 'what is philosophy' from notable philosophers and all other sources.

I noted all this whole range and varied definition of "what is philosophy" is reducible to a generic and common essence which I labelled as Philosophy Proper driven by an inherent and intrinsic drive for philosophy, wisdom, etc. which is parallel with human evolution.

Since it is intrinsic within humanity, we need to extract its universal principles and apply philosophy-proper to nurture the person from day of birth.

Analogy:
Philosophy-proper is analogically like the subject of "management" where humans from day one has been practicing the principles of management naturally [to various degrees] as an intrinsic drive. What we teach in management schools are the Principles and theories we extracted to be taught to others more efficiently.
While we have been very efficient with 'management' humanity is still groping with the inherent drive and principles of philosophy-proper.

Once we are able to extract the principles of philosophy-proper there is no question of differentiating its application between babies, young and old. Philosophy-proper would be a natural human drive for all of humanity regardless of age.
I certainly do have a sense of what philosophy is.. Philosophy is the love of knowledge, and then what is knowledge.. I agree with Kant that knowledge is judgement, but what is that? Primarily, knowledge is classification.. If a physicist can define a Gluon against a Muon, it represents knowledge.. Every definition is a concept, and every concept a bit of knowledge, and every concept is conserved, which is the essential understanding behind all philosophy; that which makes possible all higher reasoning, what Aristotle called Identity.. All knowledge is conserved..
Etymologically, Philosophy = love of wisdom, i.e. the optimal application of knowledge based on effective judgement.

Kant did not equate knowledge as judgement.
To Kant Knowledge = sufficient beliefs/convictions and sufficient objectivity [justifications], e.g. scientific knowledge.
What children understand for the most part unconsciously should simply be made conscious, and taught consciously..
and effectively.
What distinguishes ethics from philosophy is physics.. All Physical forms have being and meaning.. Moral forms have only meaning.. Ethics does not become meaningless without physics, but physics can become meaningless without ethics.. Ethics defies the reasoning that helps us to make sense of the physical world.. It is rather insight that helps us to unravel these spiritual qualities upon which all of our lives depend.. It is impossible to teach morality, impossible to even conceive of morals correctly, and in talking of morals to think of moral knowledge is impossible.. Since, in a general sense one can be moral with no great understanding, or understand morality without being moral- this may be all we can expect.. In addition, all should distinguish between Ethos and Pathos which are closely connected, and essential in the character of a human being.. Some people can distinguish between ethics and Pathos, and show one quality without the other.. I know many examples of people who are moral in regard to their own, and incapable of sympathy for humanity in general..
I cannot see any significant opposites between ethics/moral and physics.
Ethics and morality cover doing what is good and and avoiding evil acts/behavior by a person or group.
DNA wise all humans has an inherent faculty of morality and what is needed is to cultivate this moral faculty to ensure the individual act ethically as guided by moral principles.

Judaka
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Judaka » Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:59 am

People who commit crime generally already know/feel what they're doing is wrong and when this isn't the case, in most Western countries, that's literally something so extreme that they can plead legal insanity. It's considered a mental impairment or a temporary state. I'm not saying there's no wiggle room but why do people feel that criminals or those who do wrong need to be educated and taught? As though they have some understanding that dissuades them doing wrong themselves?

How many times have you seriously considered raping someone? Murdering someone? Stealing something valuable? My guess is NEVER and it's not because you're enlightened, it's because you're a human being who been evolved to be socially and thus morally responsible.

What evidence do you have to support your idea that "teaching people morality" would help anyone? I'd be adamantly against the government deciding on a "morality curriculum" and teaching it to my children. Beyond the basics at least, like keeping your hands to yourself and such. When the child does something inappropriate, you punish and educate, if they still continue to act out, there's a serious problem causing that, not lack of education.

As for critical thinking, I'm sure most Westerners would agree it's important but I don't see any reason to tie it to philosophy. What's the definition?
"The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement?" or "thinking for yourself?" whatever it is, philosophy is just distracting, why not just design lessons to teach these things by themselves?

Which is something one could argue schools already do.
Friends; this is not child's play.. Philosophy is the basis of all we know in life to be good, for to have good. people had to go at it with a purpose
What is philosophy? What is good? I can't think of definitions that help me to understand your stance.

Isn't a loving family good? Isn't education good? Isn't safety good? Can't I just go on forever - is there a need for me to?

How is philosophy for the basis for these things?
If they are inclined to waste time as we see it, it is because they cannot conceive of it, and to relate it to space is hardly an accurate symmetry.. The true relation of time is to life; that is: A moral rather than a physical analogy.. If youth is a waste of time, then that is our fault because now WE know better.. If we choose to allow youth to be a social event rather than a milestone of learning
What is wasted time? Youth go to school, play sports and socialise - which part is a waste of time? Once again, this isn't something you experienced either.

How was your primary school life? Weren't there kids who mucked up all the time? Kids who were more into books? Kids who were more into sports? Kids who excelled in academics and kids who couldn't get their act together? Do you think you could understand that by knowing what the child was taught? If it isn't biology, then it's nurture; problems at home, bad influences. The difference can't be explained by philosophy, you can't really believe that.

I see this all the time, philosophy has become your colour of choice and now you want to paint the whole world with it. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You need to us all your colours actively if you want to be insightful and useful, you can't just bypass the complexity.
We are still trapped by one of those ideals.. When children are handed their ideas fully formed, as a definition in a dictionary which they cannot question they are put in a dangerous, even a precarious position.. Murder by the many of millions was accomplished with no better tool than an ideal no one could question.. Children must learn to write dictionaries instead of reading them.. Philosophy gives to every individual the ultimate freedom of questioning authority, even intellectual authority; and even the authority of an accepted ideal.. Every idea is a kernel of truth.. The analogy between thought, and thing must be true; and children in education are set free to find that truth..
Alas, aren't you just describing critical thinking and not philosophy? Whether or not philosophy gives me anything of value, wouldn't that depend on the philosophy or its contents?

I'd be careful about oversimplifying what happened in the 20th century once again, really if you want to argue that "philosophy could have prevented the disasters of the 20th century" that should be its own post and it should be a very detailed argument. You've got hindsight on your side, you weren't there and you are speaking extremely generally.

To say that the disasters of the 20th century boils down to "ideals which no one could question" is not worth getting angry about. You couldn't understand the history of say, the Soviet Union, and apply this logic to what happened there. It might verge on an ignorant and disgustingly condescending attitude if you were to say the reason millions died was because of a lack of enlightenment.

Children need to walk before they can run and so do you, you call your proposal modest but it's arrogant. It's entirely theoretical with very little balance, experience and lacking even anecdotal evidence. The message of "more philosophy" won't find much opposition on a philosophy forum but the premises you've established, the way you've argued your case and the lack of balance to your position all scream pointless idealism without much care or effort.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:39 pm

Judaka wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:59 am
People who commit crime generally already know/feel what they're doing is wrong and when this isn't the case, in most Western countries, that's literally something so extreme that they can plead legal insanity. It's considered a mental impairment or a temporary state. I'm not saying there's no wiggle room but why do people feel that criminals or those who do wrong need to be educated and taught? As though they have some understanding that dissuades them doing wrong themselves?

How many times have you seriously considered raping someone? Murdering someone? Stealing something valuable? My guess is NEVER and it's not because you're enlightened, it's because you're a human being who been evolved to be socially and thus morally responsible.

What evidence do you have to support your idea that "teaching people morality" would help anyone? I'd be adamantly against the government deciding on a "morality curriculum" and teaching it to my children. Beyond the basics at least, like keeping your hands to yourself and such. When the child does something inappropriate, you punish and educate, if they still continue to act out, there's a serious problem causing that, not lack of education.

As for critical thinking, I'm sure most Westerners would agree it's important but I don't see any reason to tie it to philosophy. What's the definition?
"The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement?" or "thinking for yourself?" whatever it is, philosophy is just distracting, why not just design lessons to teach these things by themselves?

Which is something one could argue schools already do.
Friends; this is not child's play.. Philosophy is the basis of all we know in life to be good, for to have good. people had to go at it with a purpose
What is philosophy? What is good? I can't think of definitions that help me to understand your stance.

>>>>>>>Philosophy is easy to define since the word says what it means, and what it is, like economy... It is the word that identifies the subject and the object, and it also tells us we practice no economy no matter how much we call our ersatz economy an economy.. As one word it is exotic, but it is two words in a verb form.. See the Greek and you have a definition.. Good perplexed the ancients, and should perplex no one.. Good is like air, all around us, and hard not to find.. We all know what good is instinctively.. No one has to teach a baby to love sugar.. As we grow we refine our tastes.. What manor of good do you seek?. As with air, sorting out the elements was beyond the capacity of the Greeks, and still they had a sense of what it is.. In good we are talking of something essential to life, and yet more ether than air.. All the virtues give life, and all the vices take life.. Life is the entire standard of good in a word.. It is the meaning of all meanings.. Value is meaning.. Where people sell their time and lives for peanuts shall I ask what is the value of life.. The meaning of life is like the wetness of water- one and the same... <<<<<

Isn't a loving family good? Isn't education good? Isn't safety good? Can't I just go on forever - is there a need for me to?

How is philosophy for the basis for these things?

>>>>>>Look at art as what we do.. Engineering is a Liberal Art.. What we do is to achieve good, even in philosophy, economics, and Politics.. When Aristotle recognized that Governments are created with an object of good it was supported by the observation that Good is the object of all human activity.. Why else would people labor? For evil?? We all seek good, and apart from that easy observations, I know how we do it.. I know how humanity has always sought good.. I know how they all achieved it.. Or failed to achieve it..<<<<<<
If they are inclined to waste time as we see it, it is because they cannot conceive of it, and to relate it to space is hardly an accurate symmetry.. The true relation of time is to life; that is: A moral rather than a physical analogy.. If youth is a waste of time, then that is our fault because now WE know better.. If we choose to allow youth to be a social event rather than a milestone of learning
What is wasted time? Youth go to school, play sports and socialise - which part is a waste of time? Once again, this isn't something you experienced either.

>>>>>>I had to learn to learn.. All children do.. Before they have formal knowledge, the ability to reason, and the sense of identity- all children have the syllogism.. This gives a definition to all things preliminary to deeper thought.. I am not typical, but I had to know to learn.. My mind was never a void, and I could add to what I knew.. In a physical sense, as a metaphor, knowledge could replace the wrong, or affirm the right but I had to bring some knowledge to the process, so when I knew nothing, I could learn but little.. Socialization is more important than education. People can always learn.. When socialization, forming relationships is the key to all good, that ability must be encouraged.. But I know our education suffers because schools do not help children to go after education in a rational fashion.. Long after children are capable of higher, abstract reasoning, they are handed definitions without the essential understanding that definitions are ideas, and all ideas define an object.. The notion that philosophy should wait till the end of education is daft.. It was the beginning of my education.. It should be the beginning of all education.. <<<<<

How was your primary school life? Weren't there kids who mucked up all the time? Kids who were more into books? Kids who were more into sports? Kids who excelled in academics and kids who couldn't get their act together? Do you think you could understand that by knowing what the child was taught? If it isn't biology, then it's nurture; problems at home, bad influences. The difference can't be explained by philosophy, you can't really believe that.

I see this all the time, philosophy has become your colour of choice and now you want to paint the whole world with it. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You need to us all your colours actively if you want to be insightful and useful, you can't just bypass the complexity.

>>>>>Philosophy is not my color, but my eyes.. And I lie because I am blind.. I feel my way through life.. I find a plane in my space.. It is my mind that makes that plane infinite, and infinite is logically impossible, so it is reason that sets limits on my imagination.. I feel the truth before I try to define it.. I know.. My path is convoluted..<<<<<
We are still trapped by one of those ideals.. When children are handed their ideas fully formed, as a definition in a dictionary which they cannot question they are put in a dangerous, even a precarious position.. Murder by the many of millions was accomplished with no better tool than an ideal no one could question.. Children must learn to write dictionaries instead of reading them.. Philosophy gives to every individual the ultimate freedom of questioning authority, even intellectual authority; and even the authority of an accepted ideal.. Every idea is a kernel of truth.. The analogy between thought, and thing must be true; and children in education are set free to find that truth..
Alas, aren't you just describing critical thinking and not philosophy? Whether or not philosophy gives me anything of value, wouldn't that depend on the philosophy or its contents?

>>>>>There are no lines between critical thinking and philosophy.. There is very much a line between morals/ethics, and physics.. Physics is the car, and morals is the driver.. Our social car has no driver.. I should cry out or something.<<<<

I'd be careful about oversimplifying what happened in the 20th century once again, really if you want to argue that "philosophy could have prevented the disasters of the 20th century" that should be its own post and it should be a very detailed argument. You've got hindsight on your side, you weren't there and you are speaking extremely generally.

To say that the disasters of the 20th century boils down to "ideals which no one could question" is not worth getting angry about. You couldn't understand the history of say, the Soviet Union, and apply this logic to what happened there. It might verge on an ignorant and disgustingly condescending attitude if you were to say the reason millions died was because of a lack of enlightenment.

Children need to walk before they can run and so do you, you call your proposal modest but it's arrogant. It's entirely theoretical with very little balance, experience and lacking even anecdotal evidence. The message of "more philosophy" won't find much opposition on a philosophy forum but the premises you've established, the way you've argued your case and the lack of balance to your position all scream pointless idealism without much care or effort.
>>>>>In the sense that Jakob Burckhardt was a Prophet of the terribles Simplificateurs, you are correct.. He saw them coming, the hitlers and stalins; those men of simple minds who made it all sound so simple.. We are dealing with one now.. I am not saying anything is simple.. You can take philosophy anywhere.. At its most basic philosophy is very basic because it deals with objects with definitions.. Only when moral forms are questioned does the philosopher find himself lost because he has followed objective reality into subjective reality.. No one by force of will has ever given substance to love or justice.. It is better to observe it than to define it.. I am not at all idealistic.. This is a practical proposal..<<<<

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:01 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:36 am
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:39 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 5:22 am

It is said, there are as many definitions of 'what is philosophy' as the number of people who attempted to define it.
So there is probable millions or perhaps billions of definitions [explicit or implicit] of "what is philosophy" out there.

As with the above, I believe you have a very confined and specific definition of 'what is philosophy.'

I have read of hundreds of definitions of 'what is philosophy' from notable philosophers and all other sources.

I noted all this whole range and varied definition of "what is philosophy" is reducible to a generic and common essence which I labelled as Philosophy Proper driven by an inherent and intrinsic drive for philosophy, wisdom, etc. which is parallel with human evolution.

Since it is intrinsic within humanity, we need to extract its universal principles and apply philosophy-proper to nurture the person from day of birth.

Analogy:
Philosophy-proper is analogically like the subject of "management" where humans from day one has been practicing the principles of management naturally [to various degrees] as an intrinsic drive. What we teach in management schools are the Principles and theories we extracted to be taught to others more efficiently.
While we have been very efficient with 'management' humanity is still groping with the inherent drive and principles of philosophy-proper.

Once we are able to extract the principles of philosophy-proper there is no question of differentiating its application between babies, young and old. Philosophy-proper would be a natural human drive for all of humanity regardless of age.
I certainly do have a sense of what philosophy is.. Philosophy is the love of knowledge, and then what is knowledge.. I agree with Kant that knowledge is judgement, but what is that? Primarily, knowledge is classification.. If a physicist can define a Gluon against a Muon, it represents knowledge.. Every definition is a concept, and every concept a bit of knowledge, and every concept is conserved, which is the essential understanding behind all philosophy; that which makes possible all higher reasoning, what Aristotle called Identity.. All knowledge is conserved..
Etymologically, Philosophy = love of wisdom, i.e. the optimal application of knowledge based on effective judgement.

Kant did not equate knowledge as judgement.
To Kant Knowledge = sufficient beliefs/convictions and sufficient objectivity [justifications], e.g. scientific knowledge.
What children understand for the most part unconsciously should simply be made conscious, and taught consciously..
and effectively.
What distinguishes ethics from philosophy is physics.. All Physical forms have being and meaning.. Moral forms have only meaning.. Ethics does not become meaningless without physics, but physics can become meaningless without ethics.. Ethics defies the reasoning that helps us to make sense of the physical world.. It is rather insight that helps us to unravel these spiritual qualities upon which all of our lives depend.. It is impossible to teach morality, impossible to even conceive of morals correctly, and in talking of morals to think of moral knowledge is impossible.. Since, in a general sense one can be moral with no great understanding, or understand morality without being moral- this may be all we can expect.. In addition, all should distinguish between Ethos and Pathos which are closely connected, and essential in the character of a human being.. Some people can distinguish between ethics and Pathos, and show one quality without the other.. I know many examples of people who are moral in regard to their own, and incapable of sympathy for humanity in general..
I cannot see any significant opposites between ethics/moral and physics.
Ethics and morality cover doing what is good and and avoiding evil acts/behavior by a person or group.
DNA wise all humans has an inherent faculty of morality and what is needed is to cultivate this moral faculty to ensure the individual act ethically as guided by moral principles.
There is no opposition between moral and physics, but a difference, and their names say as much.. To be clear, physics holds first place in human activity.. Good means physical and individual good to many people, but the moralist might say truth, as scientific truth is one of the virtues essential to all life, and physical well being.. It does not matter what armies labor in search of truth, but what matters is the number willing to endure threat and contumely and steadily pursue ones course in the midst of a vicious people.. All life rests on moral understanding, and this cannot be taught, and yet it can be learned, and the ability to learn is innate.. Some reason can be found for moral behavior in general.. Every specific act of morality is irrational.. Morality is community.. Reason is individual with the success and survival of the individual being the primary focus of logic.. The spiritual bond of morality can be reasoned away easily.. To teach morality one must prove it exists, and to question morality is to disprove it.. If you feel it, you feel it, and you understand that it shrinks in the light.. The sad fact is that people can moralize themselves to death, but no one ever reasons themselves to death.. Death is unreasonable. So are morals..

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:05 pm

I hope everyone understands that I am trying to navigate this site with little essential knowledge of what does what to to what..

Walker
Posts: 6375
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Walker » Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:57 pm

Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:01 pm
Death is unreasonable. So are morals..
Morals are reasonable for the species. Keeps everyone from killing everyone else.

Impenitent
Posts: 2196
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Impenitent » Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:13 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:57 pm
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:01 pm
Death is unreasonable. So are morals..
Morals are reasonable for the species. Keeps everyone from killing everyone else.
mutually assured destruction works better...

-Imp

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:23 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:57 pm
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:01 pm
Death is unreasonable. So are morals..
Morals are reasonable for the species. Keeps everyone from killing everyone else.
Your's is Kant's approach.
Finding a reason for morals after the fact, or finding reason for them by imagining a world without them is not the reason to act morally in a demanding situation.. It is not reason that causes people to risk their lives to save the lives of others... When people do so it is not because of reason because reason has the purpose of improving, and extending life... Morality is what moral people do, and only when it is done do we see it as moral.. As one Jurist told an English lawyer: There are no imaginary cases.. Law, like morals is based upon actual situations. There is no imaginary morality.. Nor is there a hypothetical morality.. Ask me what I would do in such and such a case and situation and I will let you know when I get there.. What I have done in the past is no guide.. Neither is what I think a guide.. My moral courage nearly got me killed, and the one I helped should have been dead before I acted; but I have been often courageous, and that is past.. When courage is needed tomorrow, the courage of yesterday indicates, but proves nothing.. In facing death to save life, people do not think, but act.. On the other hand, when they would do injustice, they do think because all injustice is justified.. What is just, that is: Moral is moral on its face, and just, and never needs to be justified..

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:16 am

Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:01 pm
There is no opposition between moral and physics, but a difference, and their names say as much..
To be clear, physics holds first place in human activity..
Good means physical and individual good to many people, but the moralist might say truth, as scientific truth is one of the virtues essential to all life, and physical well being..
Nah! bad and evil is also physical activity, e.g. murder, rape, violence, etc.
My point is there are no specific and strong links between Morality and Physics.
Every field of knowledge will end up with human physical activities some how.

The focus on morality and ethics should be on the philosophy, principles of morality and behaviors, not on the Physics [Science] of behaviors.

Suggest you read and do more research on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests