A Modust Proposal

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Belinda » Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:04 pm

I entirely agree with Charm's original post the topic of which(if I may) is the benefit if child education for critical judgement.

I did initial teacher training and undergradute course in education during the 1970s. At that time child centred education as method was in full swing . One result was that it was known that young children play and learn and play to learn. Another result of child centred education was that it was known that a child and her peers learn from each other through exchanging ideas suited to their stage of moral maturity.

These methods centre upon the belief that the child needs to be acquainted with critical thinking as a skill for living. Teachers try very hard to follow that method and rationale while usually having to contend with and sort of incorporate government regulations which aim to restrict education to training for passing examinations and tests.

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:28 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:04 pm
I entirely agree with Charm's original post the topic of which(if I may) is the benefit if child education for critical judgement.

I did initial teacher training and undergradute course in education during the 1970s. At that time child centred education as method was in full swing . One result was that it was known that young children play and learn and play to learn. Another result of child centred education was that it was known that a child and her peers learn from each other through exchanging ideas suited to their stage of moral maturity.

These methods centre upon the belief that the child needs to be acquainted with critical thinking as a skill for living. Teachers try very hard to follow that method and rationale while usually having to contend with and sort of incorporate government regulations which aim to restrict education to training for passing examinations and tests.
I see physics, what I am talking about for children is a rational approach for them and their teachers.. Children become capable of reasoning at an early age, and probably not all at once, but when they are there, Say: This is an idea.. Ideas are basic, fixed, definite, and a mental representation of reality- never exact.. What children learn from each other is garbage knowledge, the blind leading the blind; but it still develops their intellect.. Anything using mind helps brain development, imo .. Math is the only place where abstract reasoning is consciously taught, and learned at an early age.. I think we learn by rote for many years.. Lessons learned that way still stick with me.. I think that knowledge is having the correct idea, and that teaching is giving that idea, and that learning is getting the idea.. No one ever said to me: This is an idea.. This is the most basic part of anything distilled to its essence.. This is truth until more is learned.. -How to organize, and how to classify knowledge is nothing I was ever taught.. How many teachers learn philosophy? I think most of us know philosophy subconsciously.. Those who learn faster get the idea faster, but that does not mean we are formally conscious.. I had to learn at an advanced age what Identity was.. I knew what it was, but had to make my self conscious of it.. It is the unchanging part of the idea.. In Geometry, Line- is a certain idea... All lines are different in length, but equal in being lines, so length and distance as comparison have meaning.. It is in finding equality, conserved equalities, that ideas are formed... What does anything have in common.. For example: What exactly makes a dog a dog.. There are places for learning by rote.. History for example, must be learned in detail before social and individual motive will make sense, but learning by rote is never the object.. Cause and effect are universal to all understanding but people are encouraged in many cases to hold on to magical thinking long after it is childish.. If the government will not deny the power of faith, why should anyone.. There are places like schools, and like government where rational people should converse.. And the more nonsense is taught to children as fact the more of their time is wasted..

Belinda
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Belinda » Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:49 pm

Charm, I agree that rote learning has a place in child education. I disagree that history is best introduced as rote learned.

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:06 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:49 pm
Charm, I agree that rote learning has a place in child education. I disagree that history is best introduced as rote learned.
Only when people know what happened can they take a moral lesson from it.. War, violence in general is a form of communication, but is a failure of all other forms of communication.. In a sense History is class struggle, in another it is progress, but usually only progress after periods of regress.. Before it can be true learning, before we can face our future with greater understanding and resolve, we must first grasp the facts.. Yes, you can draw relationships in great events.. I say: The black death freed capital and so gave birth to capitalism as we know it, and capitalism led to the discovery of the America's and that conquest led to a doubling of Gold as capital in Europe.. It is no study of people that led to this conclusion, but the events on a time line so the relationship was already drawn in a sense, and I only had to read it chronologically to see what was going on: Capitalism feeds of death and conquest..
It is wrong to believe children below the age of reasoning have no reasoning.. They have the syllogism which gives them a rough definition of things without the method of challenging their knowledge.. Even with reasoning we have no defense from people being taught nonsense theories like American Exceptionalism, or other cultural chauvinism .. I wish people were more honest.. If they want to kill another and take what is theirs they should just admit it..

Belinda
Posts: 2800
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Belinda » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:08 am

Charm, history is history of people in society. No child will learn to like history unless they feel for people in times past. history is best learned from stories that's to say as an art. Later on when the child is older then they can learn about how history comes to be written and what seems to be significant in world events. At this point dates can be learned. If the dates are forgotten they can be easily looked up by the child who is taught to take responsibility for their own research.

A place for rote learning in history might be a light hearted mass repetition of some important date, if there is time to spare for levity.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2662
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:10 am

Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:46 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:13 am
Judaka wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:11 pm
It is becoming clear to me that this forum consists almost entirely of complete nutters. Explains why the only active posters are the nutters besides Nick_A, Commonsense, a few others and some shitposters.
Do not think too highly of yourself as a high achiever in Philosophy.

Generally in forum like this, members are not pre-qualified before acceptance. Therefore there will be members with range of competences.

Instead of complaining and whining, use your discretion intelligently/wisely to do what is necessary and optimally.
What is necessary and optimal depends on my goals. You have no idea what they are. So what are you talking about?

You talk about a range of competency but look at the context, the people I'm talking about, to some extent that included you, behave with absolute certainty and self-belief. There's no way I would say these things to Charm if had asked people their opinions and gave his thoughts for discussion.

I always talk to people with thoughts that a discussion will be taking place, at least, an argument where we might end with agreeing to disagree.

Charm said some pretty outrageous things in his OP imo but I was willing to hear him out, each post he made, it became more obvious that he wasn't interested in either debate or discussion.

At this point I've got a choice, I can exit the thread because I don't want to continue the farce or I can rattle the cage. I only do the latter if I think it's worth it. In my self-awareness thread with Age, I didn't bother to do this because it was evident to me that the discussion with him wouldn't lead anywhere interesting. Perhaps Charm corrects my thinking or admits his mistake, I only got patience for one of these outcomes.

I didn't come into this thread thinking I was a better philosopher or thinker than Charm but I'm not going to keep banging my head against a wall.

I have no way of knowing what the "average philosopher" is like and I don't believe that's what you guys are but if that was what was being represented on this forum, I'm not feeling validated or proud, just concerned.
What you think of Charm is not that critical re my point.
It is your opinion of those other than Charm that is my concern.

You don't even understand what is philosophy-proper, so how you could you form an opinion [not believe] of what we other 'guys' competence in philosophy-proper.

Here is a clue to what is philosophy-proper;
Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
I suggest you refrain from being too opinionated of "we the other guys" and just use your discretion to continue discussion with anyone of your inclinations or just ignore the thread quietly.

Example as in this case, I understood the situation, made some suggestions and moved on.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Judaka » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:25 am

You think you can add "-proper" to the end of the word philosophy and start telling me what philosophy is?

I completely disagree with your quote, in fact, I think it's just poetry. Philosophy renders our minds great like the greatness of the universe?

It would be pointless of me to then tell you what I think "philosophy" is, the point is that we all have our own reasons for thinking about things, our own ambitions and reasons for thinking about "philosophy".

Not to mention that the topic of this thread is not what could be called philosophy by Bertrand's definition. Charm has talked about history, psychology, early learning in children, government constitution/laws and many other topics which in often cases do have "definite answers". Charm has made many factually incorrect statements throughout this thread, which is mostly what I'm annoyed about, besides a few other things. Not annoyed about his philosophy.

Once again, I am here for my own reasons and with my own motivations and intent. It is not completely pointless in my mind to insult people and express my contempt. In my life, I've learned more from my mistakes than anything else and by putting my pride on the line by expressing what I feel, I give others the opportunity to prove what I am doing or saying is wrong or if I can see that for myself then that's also good. I'm also only talking to you, to give you this chance. You may find you want to politely agree to disagree and leave the conversation but don't you just walk away entirely convinced that you're right without ever putting what you thought to the test?

I expect people to find my tone disagreeable and come to put me in my place, I welcome it. If you could actually do that, I would be able to become conscious of another weakness of mine and that knowledge is valuable to me. Your all-knowing attitude is a product of the practices you're describing and it's not nearly as meritorious as you assume.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2662
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:07 am

Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:25 am
You think you can add "-proper" to the end of the word philosophy and start telling me what philosophy is?

I completely disagree with your quote, in fact, I think it's just poetry. Philosophy renders our minds great like the greatness of the universe?

It would be pointless of me to then tell you what I think "philosophy" is, the point is that we all have our own reasons for thinking about things, our own ambitions and reasons for thinking about "philosophy".

Not to mention that the topic of this thread is not what could be called philosophy by Bertrand's definition. Charm has talked about history, psychology, early learning in children, government constitution/laws and many other topics which in often cases do have "definite answers". Charm has made many factually incorrect statements throughout this thread, which is mostly what I'm annoyed about, besides a few other things. Not annoyed about his philosophy.
It was you who deviated into commenting about the philosophical competence of others [me included by implication]. Thus my venture to point out what is 'philosophy-proper' to differentiate it from the incestuous academic philosophy, arm-chair philosophy, etc.

It is my view but it is not a blind one. I have studied more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' from the West, East and everywhere.

These 500++ definitions are at the fringes of a circle all pointing toward a common center [see sample model below], the essence, i.e. philosophy-proper.

Image

The quote from Russell is merely one clue to that center of philosophy-proper.

Obviously extracting a common essence from 500++ definitions of 'what is philosophy' should carry some reasonable weights over those picked from the air based on subjective opinions.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:07 am
It was you who deviated into commenting about the philosophical competence of others [me included by implication]. Thus my venture to point out what is 'philosophy-proper' to differentiate it from the incestuous academic philosophy, arm-chair philosophy, etc.
You don't think what you are doing is arm-chair philosophy? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Can you point us to any of your practical contributions to society?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:07 am
Obviously extracting a common essence from 500++ definitions of 'what is philosophy' should carry some reasonable weights over those picked from the air based on subjective opinions.
Any definition you 'extract' would be your own personal bias. Meaningless to me. Meaningful to you.

Precisely because Philosophy means many things to many people.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2662
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:31 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:07 am
It was you who deviated into commenting about the philosophical competence of others [me included by implication]. Thus my venture to point out what is 'philosophy-proper' to differentiate it from the incestuous academic philosophy, arm-chair philosophy, etc.
You don't think what you are doing is arm-chair philosophy? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Can you point us to any of your practical contributions to society?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:07 am
Obviously extracting a common essence from 500++ definitions of 'what is philosophy' should carry some reasonable weights over those picked from the air based on subjective opinions.
Any definition you 'extract' would be your own personal bias. Meaningless to me. Meaningful to you.

Precisely because Philosophy means many things to many people.
Point is once we understand the essence [the unity within the diversity], we can easily reconcile and qualify to the individual's preferences and contexts.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:31 am
Point is once we understand the essence [the unity within the diversity], we can easily reconcile and qualify to the individual's preferences and contexts.
So you are doing multi-variate optimisation.

Do you know what the variables you are optimising for are?

Would you say that human rights feature in your optimisation process?

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Judaka » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:37 am

It was you who deviated into commenting about the philosophical competence of others [me included by implication]. Thus my venture to point out what is 'philosophy-proper' to differentiate it from the incestuous academic philosophy, arm-chair philosophy, etc.
No, it was you who told me that there's a range of competency in philosophy. What I call philosophy, that's true, however, that's just my definition. You merely want to monopolise the definition so you can use it as a premise for your arguments. I have no idea why you'd feel contempt towards "academic and arm-chair philosophy" when that describes a huge range of material. It just shows how you are only willing to talk in absolutes, something which is so common in this forum it's just amazing.

I don't care how much you've studied the definition of philosophy, in the end, it's a word being used to describe something and all you can argue is that someone is using the definition inappropriately to describe what they mean. You can't tell me that my views about what the essence of philosophy are wrong by questioning my definition.
Point is once we understand the essence [the unity within the diversity], we can easily reconcile and qualify to the individual's preferences and contexts.
Again, you seek to monopolise a definition and use it to demand conformity and exert control over others. It's idiotic approach driven by a desire... a NEED to talk in absolutes. Opinions aren't good enough, having a smart, useful and compelling opinion isn't good enough, it has to be some unifying, absolute truth.

Whatever absolute truth you come up with, it can't be useful for me to hear about, it's just a half-assed, lazy approach. Can't see much reason to continue this conversation. What do you think?

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:47 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:07 am
Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:25 am
You think you can add "-proper" to the end of the word philosophy and start telling me what philosophy is?

I completely disagree with your quote, in fact, I think it's just poetry. Philosophy renders our minds great like the greatness of the universe?

It would be pointless of me to then tell you what I think "philosophy" is, the point is that we all have our own reasons for thinking about things, our own ambitions and reasons for thinking about "philosophy".

Not to mention that the topic of this thread is not what could be called philosophy by Bertrand's definition. Charm has talked about history, psychology, early learning in children, government constitution/laws and many other topics which in often cases do have "definite answers". Charm has made many factually incorrect statements throughout this thread, which is mostly what I'm annoyed about, besides a few other things. Not annoyed about his philosophy.
It was you who deviated into commenting about the philosophical competence of others [me included by implication]. Thus my venture to point out what is 'philosophy-proper' to differentiate it from the incestuous academic philosophy, arm-chair philosophy, etc.

It is my view but it is not a blind one. I have studied more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' from the West, East and everywhere.

These 500++ definitions are at the fringes of a circle all pointing toward a common center [see sample model below], the essence, i.e. philosophy-proper.

Image

The quote from Russell is merely one clue to that center of philosophy-proper.

Obviously extracting a common essence from 500++ definitions of 'what is philosophy' should carry some reasonable weights over those picked from the air based on subjective opinions.
You are wrong on two points here: , Definition is not our master, but our trade.. It is philosophers who have given us definition, and it is for us to do in their place.. Yours is an appeal to authority.. I own a lot of dictionaries and some are quite are quite large.. They can give me any definition in the world and it is my job to see if they are true.. Your mind is as good as theirs.. You can read about what philosophy all you like, but only you can say what philosophy is.. You make it relevant..

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:56 pm

Judaka wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:37 am
It was you who deviated into commenting about the philosophical competence of others [me included by implication]. Thus my venture to point out what is 'philosophy-proper' to differentiate it from the incestuous academic philosophy, arm-chair philosophy, etc.
No, it was you who told me that there's a range of competency in philosophy. What I call philosophy, that's true, however, that's just my definition. You merely want to monopolise the definition so you can use it as a premise for your arguments. I have no idea why you'd feel contempt towards "academic and arm-chair philosophy" when that describes a huge range of material. It just shows how you are only willing to talk in absolutes, something which is so common in this forum it's just amazing.

I don't care how much you've studied the definition of philosophy, in the end, it's a word being used to describe something and all you can argue is that someone is using the definition inappropriately to describe what they mean. You can't tell me that my views about what the essence of philosophy are wrong by questioning my definition.
Point is once we understand the essence [the unity within the diversity], we can easily reconcile and qualify to the individual's preferences and contexts.
Again, you seek to monopolise a definition and use it to demand conformity and exert control over others. It's idiotic approach driven by a desire... a NEED to talk in absolutes. Opinions aren't good enough, having a smart, useful and compelling opinion isn't good enough, it has to be some unifying, absolute truth.

Whatever absolute truth you come up with, it can't be useful for me to hear about, it's just a half-assed, lazy approach. Can't see much reason to continue this conversation. What do you think?
I will argue for a definition, but people can do what they like.. For the point of action when action is required you need your own definition.. The relationship between morals and physics is that of a lens.. People can see their reflection in their morals and in their physics, but through morals we can see and also judge physics.. Looking at the moral world through the physical mind is looking into a carnival mirror.. The Oppenheimers never really get morals except in the technical sense of community before all others..

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

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:00 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:31 am
Point is once we understand the essence [the unity within the diversity], we can easily reconcile and qualify to the individual's preferences and contexts.
So you are doing multi-variate optimisation.

Do you know what the variables you are optimising for are?

Would you say that human rights feature in your optimisation process?
In your classification which is useless in discussions of morality you are making the mistake of the second intention.. The second intention is when we begin to talk about talking, about the process of communication rather than using language to communicate.. Define a flower.. Fine.. Don't bother to define love without a lot of ink..

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests