• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Philosophy Conversation Thread

  • Thread starter Deleted member 47625
  • Start date
Go to CruxDreams.com
D

Deleted member 47625

Guest
I 100% agree but it is not in the interest of those in power to have those they wish to (or have) power over to THINK because then you might start to question what you are told to do and believe.

And that unfortunately also includes educators. I once asked a very intelligent friend of mine (who has both Pharmaceutical and Law degrees) how tough law school was. He laughed and said "Any one can graduate Law school it only teaches you fear of God ........ and that every professor thinks he is God."

kisses

willowfall
While this is very true, I personally believe that the subpar education standards are not only a result of malicious intent, but also (and maybe even more so) of a self-perpetuating cycle of incompetency. Most people only possess average intelligence and motivation to learn, which is extremely low compared to people who are actually intelligent and willing to learn. This means that the vast majority of educators are - plainly speaking - dumb as shit. Because they are dumb as shit, they don't recognize actual intelligence and instead they only trust their given curriculum, which doesn't test intelligence but conformity and - to a lesser degree - industriousness (or, alternatively, willingness to cheat). This results in a huge amount of averagely intelligent people being admitted to universities and becoming educators themselves, which again perpetuates this cycle.

I can speak volumes about this topic. I'm currently studying to become a math teacher and in my country, there is a big movement among math education students to change the university curriculum, so that they get less math and more "didactics" (which is another word for bullshit) courses. The reasoning behind this is that the math courses are "too hard" for the average math education student. The worst part about this is that many professors support this cause. How does this make sense??? How can someone who is too bad at math to pass math courses even think he is able to be a good math teacher???

These people are bad at math because their math teachers sucked, and now they want to lower the standards so they themselves can become even worse math teachers and educate a generation of even worse math students! Do you see the pattern?

In a way, it works like entropy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While this is very true, I personally believe that the subpar education standards are not only a result of malicious intent, but also (and maybe even more so) of a self-perpetuating cycle of incompetency. Most people only possess average intelligence and motivation to learn, which is extremely low compared to people who are actually intelligent and willing to learn. This means that the vast majority of educators are - plainly speaking - dumb as shit. Because they are dumb as shit, they don't recognize actual intelligence and instead they only trust their given curriculum, which doesn't test intelligence but conformity and - to a lesser degree - industriousness (or, alternatively, willingness to cheat). This results in a huge amount of averagely intelligent people being admitted to universities and becoming educators themselves, which again perpetuates this cycle.

I can speak volumes about this topic. I'm currently studying to become a math teacher and in my country, there is a big movement among math education students to change the university curriculum, so that they get less math and more "didactics" (which is another word for bullshit) courses. The reasoning behind this is that the math courses are "too hard" for the average math education student. The worst part about this is that many professors support this cause. How does this make sense??? How can someone who is too bad at math to pass math courses even think he is able to be a good math teacher???

These people are bad at math because their math teachers sucked, and now they want to lower the standards so they themselves can become even worse math teachers and educate a generation of even worse math students! Do you see the pattern?

In a way, it works like entropy.
Very well put, Praetor. The trend began decades ago and accelerated when schools and universities relaxed proficiency standards for the benefit of the higher income attracted by more fees, lower quality bums on seats, a policy that, amongst other consequences, resulted in the failure of the Common Core initiative in the USA and similar standard programs elsewhere. But of course, Praetor, it is easier to attribute it all to some “progressive” narrative. And yes, entropy can be counteracted only by more work in close systems.
 
Very well put, Praetor. The trend began decades ago and accelerated when schools and universities relaxed proficiency standards for the benefit of the higher income attracted by more fees, lower quality bums on seats, a policy that, amongst other consequences, resulted in the failure of the Common Core initiative in the USA and similar standard programs elsewhere. But of course, Praetor, it is easier to attribute it all to some “progressive” narrative. And yes, entropy can be counteracted only by more work in close systems.
As someone who isn't from the US, Common Core (speaking of it, would you mind to elaborate why you think that CC failed because of that?) and related terms are things I'm only tangentially familiar with, but a similar and related process happened in my country. Maybe there wasn't the same financial incentive, because here in Europe, there aren't the same kind of university fees as there are in the US, so there is no profit to be gained. However, because American universities are the standard model for universities anywhere else in the West and because their research output (including the quackery called "didactics") is considered dogma, our universities followed their example with terrible consequences.

Here in Europe, proficiency standards were lowered not because of financial incentives, but because of the naive idea that proficiency standards are "discriminatory". Technically, this may be true, but the efforts to counteract this natural discrimination are devastating. They absolutely wreck the quality of academia, because school standards are lowered, which leads to insufficiently trained students attending universities, which leads to university standards getting lowered in order to let them pass, which leads to educators being less proficient, etc., etc. You get the problem.

Edit: Sadly, entropy is unstoppable. Everything you do, including your efforts to counteract it, only make it stronger. It's the same with incompetency.
 
While this is very true, I personally believe that the subpar education standards are not only a result of malicious intent, but also (and maybe even more so) of a self-perpetuating cycle of incompetency. Most people only possess average intelligence and motivation to learn, which is extremely low compared to people who are actually intelligent and willing to learn. This means that the vast majority of educators are - plainly speaking - dumb as shit. Because they are dumb as shit, they don't recognize actual intelligence and instead they only trust their given curriculum, which doesn't test intelligence but conformity and - to a lesser degree - industriousness (or, alternatively, willingness to cheat). This results in a huge amount of averagely intelligent people being admitted to universities and becoming educators themselves, which again perpetuates this cycle.

I can speak volumes about this topic. I'm currently studying to become a math teacher and in my country, there is a big movement among math education students to change the university curriculum, so that they get less math and more "didactics" (which is another word for bullshit) courses. The reasoning behind this is that the math courses are "too hard" for the average math education student. The worst part about this is that many professors support this cause. How does this make sense??? How can someone who is too bad at math to pass math courses even think he is able to be a good math teacher???

These people are bad at math because their math teachers sucked, and now they want to lower the standards so they themselves can become even worse math teachers and educate a generation of even worse math students! Do you see the pattern?

In a way, it works like entropy.

Oh I agree that it is because educators DON'T want to work (and not all of them, I have known very good educators who care but even they'll tell you they are shoveling against the tide) and take advantage of human's basic laziness. There is a alleged Roman Proverb that goes "The farmer always wins." This is because farmers are willing to work hard to get ahead (and farming for a living is extremely difficult) or they starve. Ever notice it is rich empires\societies that fall the hardest? It is because the people in those societies STOP doing the hard things in favor of being pampered. Human's are lazy.

One of the key slogans of the Hippie movement in America was "Question Authority". As soon as that generation came to power (and it is now aging out) they immediately went about changing the education system from one that required you to learn and tried to teach facts (although there has always been a touch of cultural myths in education) to one that went heavily into indoctrination as to the 'correct way' to view things. Not "here's how to think logically", not "here are facts", this is what you are to believe.

And of course the pendulum goes both ways (as in it is neither solely a "left" or "right" action), authoritarian governments institute educational doctrine that supports them staying in power.

What most people don't understand is that it has never been about 'right' or 'wrong' or 'truth' (which is subjective) it has ALWAYS been about power. And the easiest (although it is a long term project) way to shift power in your direction (or into your hands) is to indoctrinate the youth. Do it well enough and they will even turn on their families.

Don't give them the tools to be able to function effectively and you make them dependent on you. Just one example from history the Pharaohs collected their taxes in food and when the farms were idle (and the surplus had been turned in in taxes) if you wanted to eat you helped build what the Pharaoh's wanted built.

Or another from OUR favorite time period, "Bread and Circuses" (only cause they didn't have social media) of ancient Rome. Feed and entertain the Rome mob and you own them and they will support you against those who are against you.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it doesn't only apply to a nation's leaders.

kisses

willowfall
 
That was Oscar Wilde, I think.

One of many quotes attributed to Oscar Wilde that he's unlikely to have said and certainly never wrote. In his time, the word 'sex' was used only for the biological fact, male or female sex, not until later in the 20th century as a metonym for sexual intercourse or activity.
 
One of many quotes attributed to Oscar Wilde that he's unlikely to have said and certainly never wrote. In his time, the word 'sex' was used only for the biological fact, male or female sex, not until later in the 20th century as a metonym for sexual intercourse or activity.
People say this about every quote by everyone. ;)
 
One of many quotes attributed to Oscar Wilde that he's unlikely to have said and certainly never wrote. In his time, the word 'sex' was used only for the biological fact, male or female sex, not until later in the 20th century as a metonym for sexual intercourse or activity.

Honestly I think this applies to many historical "quotes". If Winston Churchill had said everything that is attributed to him I don't think he would have had time to do anything else.

And then of course you have popular myths. The one I like to point out is Cary Grant NEVER said "Judy, Judy, Judy" on the big screen but the vast majority of Americans think he did.

kisses

willowfall
 
Oh I agree that it is because educators DON'T want to work (and not all of them, I have known very good educators who care but even they'll tell you they are shoveling against the tide) and take advantage of human's basic laziness. There is a alleged Roman Proverb that goes "The farmer always wins." This is because farmers are willing to work hard to get ahead (and farming for a living is extremely difficult) or they starve. Ever notice it is rich empires\societies that fall the hardest? It is because the people in those societies STOP doing the hard things in favor of being pampered. Human's are lazy.

One of the key slogans of the Hippie movement in America was "Question Authority". As soon as that generation came to power (and it is now aging out) they immediately went about changing the education system from one that required you to learn and tried to teach facts (although there has always been a touch of cultural myths in education) to one that went heavily into indoctrination as to the 'correct way' to view things. Not "here's how to think logically", not "here are facts", this is what you are to believe.

And of course the pendulum goes both ways (as in it is neither solely a "left" or "right" action), authoritarian governments institute educational doctrine that supports them staying in power.

What most people don't understand is that it has never been about 'right' or 'wrong' or 'truth' (which is subjective) it has ALWAYS been about power. And the easiest (although it is a long term project) way to shift power in your direction (or into your hands) is to indoctrinate the youth. Do it well enough and they will even turn on their families.

Don't give them the tools to be able to function effectively and you make them dependent on you. Just one example from history the Pharaohs collected their taxes in food and when the farms were idle (and the surplus had been turned in in taxes) if you wanted to eat you helped build what the Pharaoh's wanted built.

Or another from OUR favorite time period, "Bread and Circuses" (only cause they didn't have social media) of ancient Rome. Feed and entertain the Rome mob and you own them and they will support you against those who are against you.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it doesn't only apply to a nation's leaders.

kisses

willowfall

I agree with what you said completely, at least in a certain way. However, I think it's important to keep another layer, which hovers above this issue, in mind: Despite the total validity of your nihilistic thinking, which rules human societies, truth does exist. Yes, what the average person knows and believes is mostly a product of the dominant propaganda narrative of his time, however, that doesn't negate the fact that objective truth exists. Most of the time in human history, truth (purposefully) gets sidelined for propaganda reasons, but nevertheless, knowledge about it can be achieved or at least approximated - and sometimes, the leading intellectuals of a given time period even try to do exactly that. Think for example of the medieval scholastics or some of the early enlightenment philosophers. They were the intellectual powerhouses of their time, yet they didn't try to suppress truth. On the contrary, they tried to get to it as close as they could.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with what you said completely, at least in a certain way. However, I think it's important to keep another layer, which hovers above this issue, in mind: Despite the total validity of your nihilistic thinking, which rules human societies, truth does exist. Yes, what the average person knows and believes is mostly a product of the dominant propaganda narrative of his time, however, that doesn't negate the fact that objective truth exists. Most of the time in human history, truth (purposefully) gets sidelined for propaganda reasons, but nevertheless, knowledge about it can be achieved or at least approximated - and sometimes, the leading intellectuals of a given time period even try to do exactly that. Think for example of the medieval scholastics or some of the early enlightenment philosophers. They were the intellectual powerhouses of their time, yet they didn't try to suppress truth. On the contrary, they tried to get to it as close as they could.
Yes, in order for rational discourse to be possible on any question, we have to implicitly accept that there is truth - we may not be able to arrive at it, but there are valid ways of judging whether any proposition put forward is more or less likely to be true. I can't say truthfully 'It is not true that Oscar Wilde said that': absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in the absence of evidence that he said it, and of evidence for 'sex' being used in that sense in his lifetime, the balance of probability is that he didn't. :very_hot:
 
Yes, in order for rational discourse to be possible on any question, we have to implicitly accept that there is truth - we may not be able to arrive at it, but there are valid ways of judging whether any proposition put forward is more or less likely to be true.
I totally agree! As a mathematician and hobby (classical) philosopher, the concept of truth is extremely important to me. I firmly believe that none of our discourse would make any sense without it. Nowadays (to be fair, such thoughts existed even over a century ago, but anyway), there are movements which like to pretend that truth and logic are mere social constructs and therefore irrelevant (which is an inference step that has to be proven valid on its own right, but anyway), but I argue that you cannot discard logic without using logic, which inadvertently "proves" (proof is a word so strong that I never want to use, lol) the importance of logic.

I can't say truthfully 'It is not true that Oscar Wilde said that': absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in the absence of evidence that he said it, and of evidence for 'sex' being used in that sense in his lifetime, the balance of probability is that he didn't. :very_hot:

Wait, let me draw a truth table, what you're saying confuses me, lol! :hollering:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with what you said completely, at least in a certain way. However, I think it's important to keep another layer, which hovers above this issue, in mind: Despite the total validity of your nihilistic thinking, which rules human societies, truth does exist. Yes, what the average person knows and believes is mostly a product of the dominant propaganda narrative of his time, however, that doesn't negate the fact that objective truth exists. Most of the time in human history, truth (purposefully) gets sidelined for propaganda reasons, but nevertheless, knowledge about it can be achieved or at least approximated - and sometimes, the leading intellectuals of a given time period even try to do exactly that. Think for example of the medieval scholastics or some of the early enlightenment philosophers. They were the intellectual powerhouses of their time, yet they didn't try to suppress truth. On the contrary, they tried to get to it as close as they could.

Yet many of those same scholastics and philosophers accepted and espoused theories that are abhorrent today. An example would be that slavery was natural and there were inferior races. Try saying out loud that that is a "truth" today.

The 10 Commandments state "Thou Shall Not Kill." Yet almost all modern religions have the concept of a "just war". War is organized, officially sanctioned murder, that is a fact. So how can you have a "truth" "Thou Shall Not Kill", a commandment from God, yet develop a theory of "just war"? And there are tons of other examples that can be used.

There are "facts" and they are immutable, example 'the sun rises in the east' (let's ignore the fact that "east" is a completely arbitrary definition). To argue against them just proves you are emotionally driven.

"Truth" is something we build, or accept, because it fits our world view and that is why it is variable as to time, place and culture. It is based on our moral\emotional views of that moment.

For example it is only in the last 75 or so years that the concept that a husband can rape his wife has become a legally accepted standard in western nations and any modern western woman today would say that is a "truth". Yet for thousands of years (and still in some societies today) a husband owned his wife's body for sexual purposes. So which on is the actual "truth"?

kisses

willowfall
 
So which on is the actual "truth"?

It's absolutely true that there is no absolute truth? :confused:

The fact that different propositions have been held to be true or false at different times and places does not mean that there are no valid, neutral grounds for testing them, applying the principles of logical reasoning and empirical evidence. Ethical propositions are admittedly a rather different category, though my own view is that statements about the 'right/ wrong' ways to act are fundamentally subject to the same principles of evaluation as propositions claiming to be factually true.

But the first question is, what are the (ultimate, fundamental) grounds for proposing that (for example) chattel slavery or rape in marriage are 'wrong'? Because they do not respect 'human rights'? But where do those 'rights' come from? Because they do not conform to a principle such as 'do to others what you would want them to do to you'? Or 'Act on principles that you would be content for everyone else to act upon' (Kant)? Or because they offend an innate human moral sentiment? (Hume, Smith etc., roughly) Because they do not contribute to the greatest happiness of the greatest number (Mill)? Because they are incompatible with justice (Plato), or with the behaviour of a just person (Aristotle)? Or they break some universal system of moral reasoning that is as necessary and independent of the existence of any human mind as are the laws of logic and mathematics (Aquinas)?
 
But where do those 'rights' come from? Because they do not conform to a principle such as 'do to others what you would want them to do to you'? Or 'Act on principles that you would be content for everyone else to act upon' (Kant)? Or because they offend an innate human moral sentiment? (Hume, Smith etc., roughly) Because they do not contribute to the greatest happiness of the greatest number (Mill)? Because they are incompatible with justice (Plato), or with the behaviour of a just person (Aristotle)? Or they break some universal system of moral reasoning that is as necessary and independent of the existence of any human mind as are the laws of logic and mathematics (Aquinas)?
I doubt one could successfully argue that rights are a result of some universal system in Aquinas' sense, unless one means some sort of system that is not completely comprehensible or understandable, and only "seen through a lens darkly" so to speak. Systems of moral reasoning seem to be culturally and socially driven in a lot of ways. As Willowfall has pointed out, the rights of a woman to even "own" her own body have not always been self-evident. Rights seem to be things that are agreed on by the majority, or decided by the powerful. Different countries have charters or codes of law that define rights. If these rights were truly self-evident, we wouldn't need a body of law or constitutional protection to codify them.

In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms notes that people have a right to be free from discrimination on the basis of gender or sex (as well as sexual orientation), and that all people have a right to "security of the person". This has come to mean that a woman cannot be forced to carry an unwanted foetus to term, thus making the old abortion law unconstitutional. Canada has no effective abortion law, primarily because a woman has a right to determine what her body does. This is clearly not the case in many countries. Consequently, if rights are due to some universal moral reasoning, there is considerable breadth of interpretation of that moral system across cultures and nations.

This suggests that rights evolve and change along with people's cultural, moral, and political understanding. It allows for statements such as "people should not have the right to X", which would make no sense if rights were immutable and universal.
 
self-evident.

This line in the American declaration of independence has always bothered me. Even if you believe that something is objectively true, it doesn't have to be self-evident. In fact, something as abstract as human rights are everything but self-evident. I mean otherwise, philosophers and theologians wouldn't have to write thousands of pages on such topics, would they? ;)
 
Undoubtedly concepts of 'right' as vs. 'wrong', and 'rights' in the sense of inalienable properties, have changed do change, and are conflicted. But my concern is with the fact that, in debating such questions, we assume that there is a 'right' answer, that there are valid ways for judging one ethical proposition more 'right' than another. On what grounds do we do that?

By 'universal system' I understand a system of argument and proof comparable to those of maths and logic - not a system that, in itself, presumes any set of pre-existent rights, any more than the laws of maths or logic presume any set of 'right' answers to questions to which they are applied.

I can accept as at least plausible the view that our predisposition to think in terms of moral 'right' and 'wrong' may have an evolutionary origin - language developed in a context where humans were showing each other, especially their children, the 'right' ways to make a stone tool, or hunt a mammoth - or to behave towards each other, and we're hard-wired to think in that way. If so, moral reasoning, and the validity of such reasoning, is peculiar to humans - there's no moral 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad', out there in the universe, though the principles of mathematics would be just as valid out there even if there were no humans.

I think it's unhelpful to speak in terms of moral statements being 'true' - at least, I'd query what is meant by 'true' in such contexts.
 
If a supernova explodes and nobody is there to feel the gravitational waves kinda thing?
More of a is math independent from physics (as in, there are mathematical concepts that don't make sense IRL) or is math just an an abstraction from physical realities and therefore ultimately dependent on physics kinda thing. Now, the science of physics is nothing more than the effort to translate observed phenomena into the language of mathematics (we don't know what or why these phenomena in themselves are, we just describe them) and to check if these translations are accurate by comparing extrapolations from these translations to experiments. Based on this, one could argue that mathematics are independent from physics, because mathematics are necessary to conduct the science of physics, e.g. without math no physics.
However, if you take a look at the early history of mathematics, they were basically nothing more than early physics. When a primitive human counted 3 bananas, he did nothing else than translate the "threeness" of what he saw into an abstract language. This allowed him to apply the same threeness to other things, however, this threeness is still derived from those bananas (or any other set of three objects), so it has its origin in physical reality. In a way, modern physics are exactly the same thing, just on a much grander and more complex scale.

I think this question is important, because IF mathematics depend on physics, then there is a possibility, that mathematics ultimately don't make sense. What if the universe is ultimately illogical? What if it just seems to make sense to us because we are limited beings? What if it just makes sense on an "emergent" level, but not on a fundamental one, a level not perceivable by humans? Just look at the troubles physicists have to create a coherent physical theory. Currently, it seems to be impossible.
Well, our failure to come up with a coherent physical theory might just be an indicator that our physics are simply wrong or that we haven't found the solution yet. But if it indeed is impossible and our sub-theories are right - and if math is indeed dependent on physics - then this would make our universe really creepy. Almost lovecraftian.

Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with Platonists, I really do. But questions like this still come up from time to time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom