Angelica, I think you're stating what has worked for you in particular and your view of a human becoming educated compared to many who are questioning the educational system and how to rectify some issues within in. Two separate things. We all know the educational system we have has tons of flaws, etc, we're now asking how do we fix them or what can we adjust? Some have said to completely get rid of it. Others aren't for that. Where do you stand on this matter? It's obviously you're not for the system we have now, and in a perfect world, we could just wish up something completely different... but in reality, we have to transform what we have now into something better. So with that said, what are your ideas for that?
Who said anything about aspiring to be a 'scholar'?
Actually, knowing is knowing. External education is something different.
The dictionary provides numerous definitions of "education".
From what you understand apparently.
I mean for example that Plato's view is continues to stand. As does Aristotle's. As do many other widely accepted schools of thought. Criticism cannot effectively negate such base views over time.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I'm glad I read this. For most of this thread I would have sworn you didn't understand what would happen without compulsory education. In this post you sum up precisely what would happen.
I appreciate your support but I've been speaking in favor of Compulsory Educatin the entire time.
I don't think kids have the knowledge and life experience to make a decision to not go to school. I assume most kids go through phases where they don't want to go to school, I know I did. And it was my Mom's job to tell me to stop whining and get dressed. And I did.
If my Mom said thats fine don't go to school, I wouldn't have gone and I would say my life would have been adversely affected.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I appreciate your support but I've been speaking in favor of Compulsory Educatin the entire time.
I don't think kids have the knowledge and life experience to make a decision to not go to school. I assume most kids go through phases where they don't want to go to school, I know I did. And it was my Mom's job to tell me to stop whining and get dressed. And I did.
If my Mom said thats fine don't go to school, I wouldn't have gone and I would say my life would have been adversely affected.
Are you in favor of a law that says that children must listen to their mothers? Are do you find such a law unnecessary and potentially dangerous?
Angelica, I think you're stating what has worked for you in particular and your view of a human becoming educated compared to many who are questioning the educational system and how to rectify some issues within in. Two separate things. We all know the educational system we have has tons of flaws, etc, we're now asking how do we fix them or what can we adjust? Some have said to completely get rid of it. Others aren't for that. Where do you stand on this matter? It's obviously you're not for the system we have now, and in a perfect world, we could just wish up something completely different... but in reality, we have to transform what we have now into something better. So with that said, what are your ideas for that?
Where I stand on the matter of fixing the system: The system is naturally self-adjusting through natural evolution. We are all unwitting pawns of this self-adjustment, being intimately interconnected with nature. Most people are unaware of how they are evolving beyond their awareness and one-dimensional goals.
What I'm saying is that everything is perfect and as it should be. Any theoretical ideas of improvement, disconnected from the natural life principles all around us further provide for us challenging/difficult life experience to learn how not to do this. Therefore, I AM for the system we have now, because it's evolved exactly as is for exacting purposes that I'm not privy to. edit: and because it's always perfectly self-correcting, despite our opinions about it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Are you in favor of a law that says that children must listen to their mothers? Are do you find such a law unnecessary and potentially dangerous?
No I think kids should say F U bitch and slap there Mom's in the face.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I appreciate your support but I've been speaking in favor of Compulsory Educatin the entire time.
I don't think kids have the knowledge and life experience to make a decision to not go to school. I assume most kids go through phases where they don't want to go to school, I know I did. And it was my Mom's job to tell me to stop whining and get dressed. And I did.
If my Mom said thats fine don't go to school, I wouldn't have gone and I would say my life would have been adversely affected.
Right, maybe we're talking past each other. In this thread, when talking about compulsory education, I've been under the assumtion that we're talking about government mandated education. Without that government mandate, parents would still have the ability to compell a child to attend school. So if there wasn't compulsory education in this country, it sounds like your mom would have done the right thing, and you'd still have attended a school and received an education. I haven't read posts from anyone here suggesting that children should be free to chose their own destiny. It takes lots of care and direction for a child to become a successful adult.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Who said anything about aspiring to be a 'scholar'?
Actually, knowing is knowing. External education is something different.
The dictionary provides numerous definitions of "education".
From what you understand apparently.
I mean for example that Plato's view is continues to stand. As does Aristotle's. As do many other widely accepted schools of thought. Criticism cannot effectively negate such base views over time.
Etimologically education is from Latin "educare" which means to extract from within, bring out from within. That's why the expression of self-education is meaningless. Knowledge is considered to be inside the human being (e.g Socrates) but you need tools to bring it out - which is what education provides, and scholars are learned, erudite people: the most educated.
Which is your definition of education then?
Care to give me examples of philosophers claiming Truths? I am also open to continuous learning.
Not all Plato's views continue to stand - well, apart from the term "academia"! But yes, not in politics - he abhorred democracy, for instance, although some of his other ideas have been embraced by totalitarian regimes.
Also, Aristotle's cosmology has been dead and buried for a while now,(Science has proved the Earth moves) even though it was believed valid for over 1000 years.
This is just to show you that what was once considered to be valid (logically presented) has been confronted by others and proved wrong, or in other cases confirmed right (Aristotle's rhetoric, for example). This is the progress of knowledge enabled by education.
So my whole point is that education is by definition external-looking because of the confrontation and validation of your own ideas - extracted from within yourself with education - with those of others. This exchange is essential.
Otherwise, anyone can claim whatever thoughts come into their heads to be the Truth.
Yes. For instance, when America was largely agricultural (and societies today that are primarily agricultural), many children did not go to school because they could play an economic role within the household or because parents simply cannot afford to send them.
Exactly my point before - return to the Middle Ages.
Why would that be good for the kids to be only considered as potential child labour? Aren't they free agents as well while in the care of their parents? They have rights too.
There has always been a strong movement for controlling education by dogmatic bodies, including the church. During the Middle Ages, the churches already had a large monopoly on education. Martin Luther pushed for one of the first modern system of compulsory education and realized it in Germany who instituted a Lutheran compulsory system in the 16th Century.
The spread of education threatens and challenges dominant ideology and dogma, whatever that would be. That's in the nature of education and intellectual pursuits.
Actually, Luther also translated the Bible from Latin to German so that it could be understood by the many, since Latin became the preserve of the few educated of the Middle Ages.
Luther was originally part of the Catholic Church but with this act he brought on the Reformation and caused huge problems for the Church. He himself helped break the dogma of the day by spreading education.
Can you not see the benefits of universal education?
Corporations pay billions in education taxes. Furthermore, corporations were among the primary proponents of compulsory education laws in the hopes of getting better trained workforces.
What do you mean by education taxes? Specific to corporations and for education? I thought education is funded by the taxes of all citizens. Is it something peculiar to the American system?
Are you kidding? You have mountains of state-imposed curricula. Now, one may thankfully avoid this via the private or home school system, but to suggest that the state does not impose lines of thought upon the education system is a bit of a stretch.
So what line of thought is imposed in American public schools? Is it individual capitalism or socialism or.... what is the dogmatic thought now imposed by the state/government?
Do you understand that no such law existed when you listened to your mother?
Yes because I was raised right and had a Mom who I respected enough to listen to.
What about kids who don't have parents to rely on? I think Compulsory education exists mainly for these types of situations.
In a Utopian society all kids would choose to go to school and the ones that didn't would have parents that would make sure that they received some sort of education.
Unfortunately we live in a society where not all parents are fit to run there own lives let alone raise kids and in those cases not all kids will choose to go to school. That is why the law is in place and I agree with it.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Etimologically education is from Latin "educare" which means to extract from within, bring out from within. ... Knowledge is considered to be inside the human being (e.g Socrates) but you need tools to bring it out - which is what education provides,...
Which is your definition of education then?
The above, as I've stated in this thread and in others in the past. Some people like to think this can only be done through formal and coerced means.
Care to give me examples of philosophers claiming Truths? I am also open to continuous learning.
I'm not interested in a debate of Truths.
Not all Plato's views continue to stand - well, apart from the term "academia"! But yes, not in politics - he abhorred democracy, for instance, although some of his other ideas have been embraced by totalitarian regimes.
I'm not referring to what is accepted by academia. I am referring to Truths standing as they are as principles academia hopes to understand and convey.
Also, Aristotle's cosmology has been dead and buried for a while now,(Science has proved the Earth moves) even though it was believed valid for over 1000 years.
Remember, I talk about what has withstood the test of time and is classic, not that which falls by the wayside. Also, details and symbols used to conceptualize Truths are not the Truths themselves.
This is just to show you that what was once considered to be valid (logically presented) has been confronted by others and proved wrong, or in other cases confirmed right (Aristotle's rhetoric, for example). This is the progress of knowledge enabled by education.
Knowledge to me is knowing. When someone is taught something externally, and personally has no experience in it, that is information in my mind. It's not knowing. Therefore logical concepts that fall away because they were invalid are not also truths that were known by individuals. They were distortions in understanding.
So my whole point is that education is by definition external-looking because of the confrontation and validation of your own ideas - extracted from within yourself with education - with those of others. This exchange is essential.
I have no issue with an exchange. My entire views depend on holism, which entails "as within, so without". My self education always included external education. That is not to say formal education.
Otherwise, anyone can claim whatever thoughts come into their heads to be the Truth.
Anyone can......
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's obvious that you have no comprehension of what we've been discusssing.
thanks for assuming, but you're wrong
comprehension is not the problem. i have no interest in reading what has been discussed, thats the problem. the title of the thread says "obama is pro-slavery" and it has gone 14 pages
but thanks for assuming i have comprehension problems. i went to school, thank you. i went to college, thank you. i did quite well in school, thank you. i work for a living and communicate profesionaly daily, thank you. so i think i can comprehend just fine, thank you.
comprehensionis not the problem. i have no interest in reading what has been discussed.
but thanks for assuming i have comprehension problems. i went to school, thank you. i went to college, thank you. i did quite well in school, thank you. i work for a living and communicate profesionaly daily, thank you. so i think i can comprehend just fine, thank you.
You stated inaccurately what we've been doing for 13 pages. And then you tacked your observation of your false judgment onto that. It's independant of what's really going on. And now you admit you had no interest in reading (and subsequently understanding) what you comment on. hmmm...
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Right, maybe we're talking past each other. In this thread, when talking about compulsory education, I've been under the assumtion that we're talking about government mandated education. Without that government mandate, parents would still have the ability to compell a child to attend school. So if there wasn't compulsory education in this country, it sounds like your mom would have done the right thing, and you'd still have attended a school and received an education. I haven't read posts from anyone here suggesting that children should be free to chose their own destiny. It takes lots of care and direction for a child to become a successful adult.
But let's say the parent is a complete and total fuck-up. And there are plenty of them out there. They don't care what the kid does, as long as the kid doesn't interrupt your soap operas.
If education is non-compulsory, these kids are not going to go to school. And their parents sure as hell aren't going to teach them at home. These kids grow up to be less than equal members of society, really through no fault of their own. They aren't old enough to realize the consequences of not getting a proper education.
Want to take away the laws that make schooling compulsory? Fine.
Let's take away all laws governing how parents treat their children.
Beat the hell out of your kids, parents. Leave them in a hot car on a 100-degree day without so much as a window cracked. Child abuse is now totally legal. Who is the government to tell you how to raise your children?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
You stated inaccurately what we've been doing for 13 pages. And then you tacked your observation of your false judgment onto that. It's independant of what's really going on. And now you admit you had no interest in reading (and subsequently understanding) what you comment on. hmmm...
i havent seen anything 13 pages long on the MT worth reading in months
comprehension is not the problem. i have no interest in reading what has been discussed, thats the problem. the title of the thread says "obama is pro-slavery" and it has gone 14 pages
.
The thread took a dramatic shift at about Page 4. I think your post here is the first one with the word "Obama" in it for about 10 pages.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
The above, as I've stated in this thread and in others in the past. Some people like to think this can only be done through formal and coerced means.
I'm not interested in a debate of Truths.
But can you progress, advance knowledge if you refrain from debate?
I'm not referring to what is accepted by academia. I am referring to Truths standing as they are as principles academia hopes to understand and convey.
Remember, I talk about what has withstood the test of time and is classic, not that which falls by the wayside. Also, details and symbols used to conceptualize Truths are not the Truths themselves.
Knowledge to me is knowing. When someone is taught something externally, and personally has no experience in it, that is information in my mind. It's not knowing. Therefore logical concepts that fall away because they were invalid are not also truths that were known by individuals. They were distortions in understanding.
I have no issue with an exchange. My entire views depend on holism, which entails "as within, so without". My self education always included external education. That is not to say formal education.
Anyone can......
Sure and it will be his/her own "Truth" but not solid education nor knowledge. I can say that the earth doesn't move but that doesn't make it scientifically valid or an educated statement. Basically, I can say anything and the contrary of anything and still claim it as my "truth" but externally, in the outside world and with others it won't hold. There must be external validation for a statement to be accepted as knowledge.
You are contradicting yourself here, though. You claim you have no issue with exchange of ideas but you are not interested in a debate about the Truths, when I claimed I was open to learn about it.
Academia was also the name of the school that Plato founded to teach his ideas. That term has stuck, of course. That's what I was referring to.
But yes, I agree with you that concepts and ideas might be disproven but the methods can still be proven valid and used throughout the years. Indeed, in science the intellectual method applied is the same not to mention Aristotle's inductive and deductive reasoning.
I disagree though when you claim that if you have no personal experience of something you have no knowledge of it but only information. I have no personal knowledge of Ancient Greece but I know its political institutions, its literature, culture, etc. It's not merely information. Knowledge is combination of different concepts, proven to be correct and valid, true. Anyway, it's digressing into epistemology.
What do you mean by "as within, so without"? Holism I always thought it was a synthesis of different approaches.
i havent seen anything 13 pages long on the MT worth reading in months
Based on your self-professed methods detailed here...: blind asseessment followed by blind judgment, followed by blind defense of blind assessment and blind judgment, it's not a wonder!!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
But let's say the parent is a complete and total fuck-up. And there are plenty of them out there. They don't care what the kid does, as long as the kid doesn't interrupt your soap operas.
If education is non-compulsory, these kids are not going to go to school. And their parents sure as hell aren't going to teach them at home. These kids grow up to be less than equal members of society, really through no fault of their own. They aren't old enough to realize the consequences of not getting a proper education.
That's sort of what I was thinking. I am willing to bet there are a ton of parents who wouldn't bother making the effort of getting their kids off to school (or at least educated at home) if the law didn't require it (which I agree is a type of child abuse). On top of that if the parent themselves never went to school they might have no idea how valuable it is so their kids get stuck into the same trap they are.
..but not solid education nor knowledge. I can say that the earth doesn't move but that doesn't make it scientifically valid or an educated statement. Basically, I can say anything and the contrary of anything and still claim it as my "truth" but externally, in the outside world and with others it won't hold. There must be external validation for a statement to be accepted as knowledge.
When I refer to Truth, that is independent of going consensual understandings of reality, including accepted academic 'truths'. The Truth is what it is, always, despite different approaches or levels of understandings towards it.
You are contradicting yourself here, though. You claim you have no issue with exchange of ideas but you are not interested in a debate about the Truths, when I claimed I was open to learn about it.
What I'm doing isn't a contradiction. The way you are tying it together may "reveal" a contradiction. By that same token, if your intent is to understand me, you might be looking to connect the dots in a different way.
I disagree though when you claim that if you have no personal experience of something you have no knowledge of it but only information. I have no personal knowledge of Ancient Greece but I know its political institutions, its literature, culture, etc. It's not merely information. Knowledge is combination of different concepts, proven to be correct and valid, true. Anyway, it's digressing into epistemology.
Disagreement noted.
What do you mean by "as within, so without"? Holism I always thought it was a synthesis of different approaches.
if one covers the 'within' and the 'without' at one time, that is not a synthesis of different approaches?
I can use 10 different maps to direct you to the same destination. The problem occurs when people think the map is the territory. Or that my chosen words are the energy they describe. They are rather approximations of the energy I describe. Also the words/symbols and teachings of, say, science are also approximations of the energy described as well. Just like the words/symbols etc. used to impart subjective knowing is an approximation. We have an imbalanced bias in our society that places these varying perspectives on an illusory 'objective' scale for worthiness. That is a human bias and endeavor, and not objective Truth.
To answer your question...if I experience and know something from within, and have highly credible validation from without, that presents a pretty whole picture of the issue at hand for me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Exactly my point before - return to the Middle Ages.
This is silly. A return to the Middle Ages in the context of education implies a return to the economic modalities of the Middle Ages. The removal of compulsory education would not undo centuries of economic progress.
Why would that be good for the kids to be only considered as potential child labour? Aren't they free agents as well while in the care of their parents? They have rights too.
Children have rights but you have the right to force them into schools?
I certainly believe children are free agents and that they have rights.
Would you envisage an incentive to send kids to schools given that you eliminate compulsion?
Human beings have innate incentives to learn. If I have to aggressively incentivize schools, it means my schools probably have little to do with learning.
Otherwise, why would poor families send their kids to learn? It would be against their own self-interest right? Like it's been for centuries before.
Poor families, centuries before, relied on children for income via agriculture or similar activities. The assumption that poor families would do this today, however, is a pretty poor assumption.
The spread of education threatens and challenges dominant ideology and dogma, whatever that would be. That's in the nature of education and intellectual pursuits.
Absolutely!!!! But be careful equating education and intellectual pursuits to the insitutions you are forcing children into. In most cases, those institutions reflect the opposite of education and intellectual pursuits, which is in large part why you have to force people to participate in them.
Actually, Luther also translated the Bible from Latin to German so that it could be understood by the many, since Latin became the preserve of the few educated of the Middle Ages.
Do you agree with Luther's aims then -- to expose the masses via compulsion to Biblical teachings?
Luther was originally part of the Catholic Church but with this act he brought on the Reformation and caused huge problems for the Church. He himself helped break the dogma of the day by spreading education.
He replaced the dogma of the day with a slightly modified dogma, yes.
Can you not see the benefits of universal education?
Definitely! Can you not see the harm of centrally dictated systems of dogma that everyone, by law, is forced to participate in?
What do you mean by education taxes? Specific to corporations and for education? I thought education is funded by the taxes of all citizens. Is it something peculiar to the American system?
Education is funded, for the most part, by landowners in America. Most of our schools are payed for via property taxes. Corporations represent a large shareholder in that enterprise.
So what line of thought is imposed in American public schools? Is it individual capitalism or socialism or.... what is the dogmatic thought now imposed by the state/government?
American public schools, like most public schools, stress dogmas of nationalism, economic modalities preferred by the government, history lessons biased towards the state. Certainly American public instruction is largely innocuous in its content, but it's methods and biases are painful strains on American minds.
This is silly. A return to the Middle Ages in the context of education implies a return to the economic modalities of the Middle Ages. The removal of compulsory education would not undo centuries of economic progress.
Children have rights but you have the right to force them into schools?
I certainly believe children are free agents and that they have rights.
Human beings have innate incentives to learn. If I have to aggressively incentivize schools, it means my schools probably have little to do with learning.
Poor families, centuries before, relied on children for income via agriculture or similar activities. The assumption that poor families would do this today, however, is a pretty poor assumption.
Absolutely!!!! But be careful equating education and intellectual pursuits to the insitutions you are forcing children into. In most cases, those institutions reflect the opposite of education and intellectual pursuits, which is in large part why you have to force people to participate in them.
Do you agree with Luther's aims then -- to expose the masses via compulsion to Biblical teachings?
He replaced the dogma of the day with a slightly modified dogma, yes.
Definitely! Can you not see the harm of centrally dictated systems of dogma that everyone, by law, is forced to participate in?
Education is funded, for the most part, by landowners in America. Most of our schools are payed for via property taxes. Corporations represent a large shareholder in that enterprise.
American public schools, like most public schools, stress dogmas of nationalism, economic modalities preferred by the government, history lessons biased towards the state. Certainly American public instruction is largely innocuous in its content, but it's methods and biases are painful strains on American minds.
These points are all awesome, farfromglorified.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You agree that everyone should be FORCED to "VOLUNTEER"?
Can you explain that a bit further to me?
More importantly, can you explain how that jives with the ideals of our Republic and the root princple of "FREEDOM" ?
[edit: Angelica: You stole my tttthunder]
First of all, i agree with you on a lot of subjects that you've posted but yes i agree that you should be FORCED to VOLUNTEER, if you want to put it that way. Kids in middle and high school need to learn the values of helping the less fortunate or helping those who are going through rough times. And I would know better than most of the people here on this board because I just graduated high school a year ago. Maybe it would change some kids ideas for the future and WANTING to help those people, or believe in saving the environment. It could help keep the "bums" or "druggies" stereotypes out of schools as well as change some kids for the good.
2003: Uniondale, MSG x2 | 2004: Reading | 2005: Gorge, Vancouver, Philly | 2006: East Rutherford x2, Gorge x2, Camden 1, Hartford | 2008: MSG x2, VA Beach | 2009: Philly x3 | 2010: MSG x2, Bristow | 2011: Alpine Valley x2 | 2012: MIA Philly | 2013: Wrigley, Charlottesville, Brooklyn 2 | 2014: Milan, Amsterdam 1 | 2016: MSG x2, Fenway x2, Wrigley 2 | 2018: Rome, Krakow, Berlin, Wrigley 2 | 2021: Sea Hear Now | 2022: San Diego, LA x2, MSG, Camden, Nashville, St. Louis, Denver | 2023: St. Paul 1, Chicago x2, Fort Worth x2, Austin 2 | 2024: Las Vegas 1, Seattle x2, Indy, MSG x2, Philly x2, Baltimore, Ohana 2
First of all, i agree with you on a lot of subjects that you've posted but yes i agree that you should be FORCED to VOLUNTEER, if you want to put it that way.
oh.
i absolutely agree with you.
I also heavily advocate bringing the goose step to public schooling, along with some modern iteration of "seig heil".
I think it would go a LONG way to restoring a sense of duty to and respect for our political structure, as well as a sense of obedience to power. I'm seeing this all mixed in with the Pledge of Allegiance. Children goose-stepping around the courtyard before opening bell, saying the pledge. The bell rings repeatedly, and the principal comes over the intercom, commanding a refrain of Seig Heils!
Remember, National Socialism can be FUN!
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I also heavily advocate bringing the goose step to public schooling, along with some modern iteration of "seig heil".
I think it would go a LONG way to restoring a sense of duty to and respect for our political structure, as well as a sense of obedience to power. I'm seeing this all mixed in with the Pledge of Allegiance. Children goose-stepping around the courtyard before opening bell, saying the pledge. The bell rings repeatedly, and the principal comes over the intercom, commanding a refrain of Seig Heils!
But yes, I agree with you that concepts and ideas might be disproven but the methods can still be proven valid and used throughout the years. Indeed, in science the intellectual method applied is the same not to mention Aristotle's inductive and deductive reasoning.
I'm also saying that many concepts stand, even if the masses don't agree with them. Their inherent validity is what causes them to stand. Validity is what it is, independent of proof, or external validation by individuals or the masses. And often the principles are fine tuned, and distortions are clarified and the original concepts become laser sharp, while inaccuracies are revealed and fall away. The key to this happening is our personal evolutionary stage that is brought to our processing in each moment.
I disagree though when you claim that if you have no personal experience of something you have no knowledge of it but only information. I have no personal knowledge of Ancient Greece but I know its political institutions, its literature, culture, etc. It's not merely information. Knowledge is combination of different concepts, proven to be correct and valid, true.
When I talk of knowledge and knowing, I talk of knowing. When you learn about Greece, you take it on faith that what you are told is accurate. You don't know, until you know by connecting the information with experience (experience encomapsses inner processes too).
There are things we "know" intuitively, and again, this is where knowledge begins within, and as you pointed to earlier is the base of education, wherein the external action of educing is about using tools to activate what is already understood and known. Based on this, the "tools" of education used from without, if they elicit knowing from within, do not educate in of themselves. Education is dependent on the inner connection. for example, what you might know about Greece, hinges on knowing what you know on other subjects, that relate to what you are learning on Greece, hence being, again, knowing, and not mere disconnected information taken on faith.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I appreciate your support but I've been speaking in favor of Compulsory Educatin the entire time.
I don't think kids have the knowledge and life experience to make a decision to not go to school. I assume most kids go through phases where they don't want to go to school, I know I did. And it was my Mom's job to tell me to stop whining and get dressed. And I did.
If my Mom said thats fine don't go to school, I wouldn't have gone and I would say my life would have been adversely affected.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Are you in favor of a law that says that children must listen to their mothers? Are do you find such a law unnecessary and potentially dangerous?
Where I stand on the matter of fixing the system: The system is naturally self-adjusting through natural evolution. We are all unwitting pawns of this self-adjustment, being intimately interconnected with nature. Most people are unaware of how they are evolving beyond their awareness and one-dimensional goals.
What I'm saying is that everything is perfect and as it should be. Any theoretical ideas of improvement, disconnected from the natural life principles all around us further provide for us challenging/difficult life experience to learn how not to do this. Therefore, I AM for the system we have now, because it's evolved exactly as is for exacting purposes that I'm not privy to. edit: and because it's always perfectly self-correcting, despite our opinions about it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No I think kids should say F U bitch and slap there Mom's in the face.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Right, maybe we're talking past each other. In this thread, when talking about compulsory education, I've been under the assumtion that we're talking about government mandated education. Without that government mandate, parents would still have the ability to compell a child to attend school. So if there wasn't compulsory education in this country, it sounds like your mom would have done the right thing, and you'd still have attended a school and received an education. I haven't read posts from anyone here suggesting that children should be free to chose their own destiny. It takes lots of care and direction for a child to become a successful adult.
Do you understand that no such law existed when you listened to your mother?
Etimologically education is from Latin "educare" which means to extract from within, bring out from within. That's why the expression of self-education is meaningless. Knowledge is considered to be inside the human being (e.g Socrates) but you need tools to bring it out - which is what education provides, and scholars are learned, erudite people: the most educated.
Which is your definition of education then?
Care to give me examples of philosophers claiming Truths? I am also open to continuous learning.
Not all Plato's views continue to stand - well, apart from the term "academia"!
Also, Aristotle's cosmology has been dead and buried for a while now,(Science has proved the Earth moves) even though it was believed valid for over 1000 years.
This is just to show you that what was once considered to be valid (logically presented) has been confronted by others and proved wrong, or in other cases confirmed right (Aristotle's rhetoric, for example). This is the progress of knowledge enabled by education.
So my whole point is that education is by definition external-looking because of the confrontation and validation of your own ideas - extracted from within yourself with education - with those of others. This exchange is essential.
Otherwise, anyone can claim whatever thoughts come into their heads to be the Truth.
Exactly my point before - return to the Middle Ages.
Why would that be good for the kids to be only considered as potential child labour? Aren't they free agents as well while in the care of their parents? They have rights too.
Would you envisage an incentive to send kids to schools given that you eliminate compulsion?
Otherwise, why would poor families send their kids to learn? It would be against their own self-interest right? Like it's been for centuries before.
The spread of education threatens and challenges dominant ideology and dogma, whatever that would be. That's in the nature of education and intellectual pursuits.
Actually, Luther also translated the Bible from Latin to German so that it could be understood by the many, since Latin became the preserve of the few educated of the Middle Ages.
Luther was originally part of the Catholic Church but with this act he brought on the Reformation and caused huge problems for the Church. He himself helped break the dogma of the day by spreading education.
Can you not see the benefits of universal education?
What do you mean by education taxes? Specific to corporations and for education? I thought education is funded by the taxes of all citizens. Is it something peculiar to the American system?
So what line of thought is imposed in American public schools? Is it individual capitalism or socialism or.... what is the dogmatic thought now imposed by the state/government?
Yes because I was raised right and had a Mom who I respected enough to listen to.
What about kids who don't have parents to rely on? I think Compulsory education exists mainly for these types of situations.
In a Utopian society all kids would choose to go to school and the ones that didn't would have parents that would make sure that they received some sort of education.
Unfortunately we live in a society where not all parents are fit to run there own lives let alone raise kids and in those cases not all kids will choose to go to school. That is why the law is in place and I agree with it.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I'm not interested in a debate of Truths.
I'm not referring to what is accepted by academia. I am referring to Truths standing as they are as principles academia hopes to understand and convey.
Remember, I talk about what has withstood the test of time and is classic, not that which falls by the wayside. Also, details and symbols used to conceptualize Truths are not the Truths themselves.
Knowledge to me is knowing. When someone is taught something externally, and personally has no experience in it, that is information in my mind. It's not knowing. Therefore logical concepts that fall away because they were invalid are not also truths that were known by individuals. They were distortions in understanding.
I have no issue with an exchange. My entire views depend on holism, which entails "as within, so without". My self education always included external education. That is not to say formal education.
Anyone can......
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
yes it does... it is called "Imperilling family relations" in the state of delaware... the parent can go to family court and file the charge
no wonder i have been staying out of the MT
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
thanks for assuming, but you're wrong
comprehension is not the problem. i have no interest in reading what has been discussed, thats the problem. the title of the thread says "obama is pro-slavery" and it has gone 14 pages
but thanks for assuming i have comprehension problems. i went to school, thank you. i went to college, thank you. i did quite well in school, thank you. i work for a living and communicate profesionaly daily, thank you. so i think i can comprehend just fine, thank you.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But let's say the parent is a complete and total fuck-up. And there are plenty of them out there. They don't care what the kid does, as long as the kid doesn't interrupt your soap operas.
If education is non-compulsory, these kids are not going to go to school. And their parents sure as hell aren't going to teach them at home. These kids grow up to be less than equal members of society, really through no fault of their own. They aren't old enough to realize the consequences of not getting a proper education.
Want to take away the laws that make schooling compulsory? Fine.
Let's take away all laws governing how parents treat their children.
Beat the hell out of your kids, parents. Leave them in a hot car on a 100-degree day without so much as a window cracked. Child abuse is now totally legal. Who is the government to tell you how to raise your children?
for the least they could possibly do
i havent seen anything 13 pages long on the MT worth reading in months
The thread took a dramatic shift at about Page 4. I think your post here is the first one with the word "Obama" in it for about 10 pages.
for the least they could possibly do
so why are you posting on this one then? You thought we were busting on your guy Obama, so you had to blindly rush to his defense, eh?
for the least they could possibly do
Sure and it will be his/her own "Truth" but not solid education nor knowledge. I can say that the earth doesn't move but that doesn't make it scientifically valid or an educated statement. Basically, I can say anything and the contrary of anything and still claim it as my "truth" but externally, in the outside world and with others it won't hold. There must be external validation for a statement to be accepted as knowledge.
You are contradicting yourself here, though. You claim you have no issue with exchange of ideas but you are not interested in a debate about the Truths, when I claimed I was open to learn about it.
Academia was also the name of the school that Plato founded to teach his ideas. That term has stuck, of course. That's what I was referring to.
But yes, I agree with you that concepts and ideas might be disproven but the methods can still be proven valid and used throughout the years. Indeed, in science the intellectual method applied is the same not to mention Aristotle's inductive and deductive reasoning.
I disagree though when you claim that if you have no personal experience of something you have no knowledge of it but only information. I have no personal knowledge of Ancient Greece but I know its political institutions, its literature, culture, etc. It's not merely information. Knowledge is combination of different concepts, proven to be correct and valid, true. Anyway, it's digressing into epistemology.
What do you mean by "as within, so without"? Holism I always thought it was a synthesis of different approaches.
Based on your self-professed methods detailed here...: blind asseessment followed by blind judgment, followed by blind defense of blind assessment and blind judgment, it's not a wonder!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's sort of what I was thinking. I am willing to bet there are a ton of parents who wouldn't bother making the effort of getting their kids off to school (or at least educated at home) if the law didn't require it (which I agree is a type of child abuse). On top of that if the parent themselves never went to school they might have no idea how valuable it is so their kids get stuck into the same trap they are.
When I refer to Truth, that is independent of going consensual understandings of reality, including accepted academic 'truths'. The Truth is what it is, always, despite different approaches or levels of understandings towards it.
What I'm doing isn't a contradiction. The way you are tying it together may "reveal" a contradiction. By that same token, if your intent is to understand me, you might be looking to connect the dots in a different way.
Disagreement noted.
if one covers the 'within' and the 'without' at one time, that is not a synthesis of different approaches?
I can use 10 different maps to direct you to the same destination. The problem occurs when people think the map is the territory. Or that my chosen words are the energy they describe. They are rather approximations of the energy I describe. Also the words/symbols and teachings of, say, science are also approximations of the energy described as well. Just like the words/symbols etc. used to impart subjective knowing is an approximation. We have an imbalanced bias in our society that places these varying perspectives on an illusory 'objective' scale for worthiness. That is a human bias and endeavor, and not objective Truth.
To answer your question...if I experience and know something from within, and have highly credible validation from without, that presents a pretty whole picture of the issue at hand for me.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
This is silly. A return to the Middle Ages in the context of education implies a return to the economic modalities of the Middle Ages. The removal of compulsory education would not undo centuries of economic progress.
Children have rights but you have the right to force them into schools?
I certainly believe children are free agents and that they have rights.
Human beings have innate incentives to learn. If I have to aggressively incentivize schools, it means my schools probably have little to do with learning.
Poor families, centuries before, relied on children for income via agriculture or similar activities. The assumption that poor families would do this today, however, is a pretty poor assumption.
Absolutely!!!! But be careful equating education and intellectual pursuits to the insitutions you are forcing children into. In most cases, those institutions reflect the opposite of education and intellectual pursuits, which is in large part why you have to force people to participate in them.
Do you agree with Luther's aims then -- to expose the masses via compulsion to Biblical teachings?
He replaced the dogma of the day with a slightly modified dogma, yes.
Definitely! Can you not see the harm of centrally dictated systems of dogma that everyone, by law, is forced to participate in?
Education is funded, for the most part, by landowners in America. Most of our schools are payed for via property taxes. Corporations represent a large shareholder in that enterprise.
American public schools, like most public schools, stress dogmas of nationalism, economic modalities preferred by the government, history lessons biased towards the state. Certainly American public instruction is largely innocuous in its content, but it's methods and biases are painful strains on American minds.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
First of all, i agree with you on a lot of subjects that you've posted but yes i agree that you should be FORCED to VOLUNTEER, if you want to put it that way. Kids in middle and high school need to learn the values of helping the less fortunate or helping those who are going through rough times. And I would know better than most of the people here on this board because I just graduated high school a year ago. Maybe it would change some kids ideas for the future and WANTING to help those people, or believe in saving the environment. It could help keep the "bums" or "druggies" stereotypes out of schools as well as change some kids for the good.
oh.
i absolutely agree with you.
I also heavily advocate bringing the goose step to public schooling, along with some modern iteration of "seig heil".
I think it would go a LONG way to restoring a sense of duty to and respect for our political structure, as well as a sense of obedience to power. I'm seeing this all mixed in with the Pledge of Allegiance. Children goose-stepping around the courtyard before opening bell, saying the pledge. The bell rings repeatedly, and the principal comes over the intercom, commanding a refrain of Seig Heils!
Remember, National Socialism can be FUN!
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
When I talk of knowledge and knowing, I talk of knowing. When you learn about Greece, you take it on faith that what you are told is accurate. You don't know, until you know by connecting the information with experience (experience encomapsses inner processes too).
There are things we "know" intuitively, and again, this is where knowledge begins within, and as you pointed to earlier is the base of education, wherein the external action of educing is about using tools to activate what is already understood and known. Based on this, the "tools" of education used from without, if they elicit knowing from within, do not educate in of themselves. Education is dependent on the inner connection. for example, what you might know about Greece, hinges on knowing what you know on other subjects, that relate to what you are learning on Greece, hence being, again, knowing, and not mere disconnected information taken on faith.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!