Jump to content

Why God


Athena
 Share

Recommended Posts

I did not see a science forum specifically for how our brains work, and what makes humans different from animals, so I chose the other science forum. If a mod determines another forum is better, place move it and inform me of the change.

 

This is not the only experiment proving a chimps capacity for thinking but the most interesting to me.

 

My argument is, some animals are capable of language and reasoning, but this is not equal to abstract thinking. I am arguing only humans are capable of abstract thinking. However, this is a skill that must be learned, and if it is not taught it can not be learned. More importantly this difference is why man can have God and animals do not. To contemplate time or God or religion or ideologies, requires the necessary knowledge for the abstract thought, and while animals can reason, only humans engage in abstract thinking.

 

I believe we have reason to believe that chimps can reason. This belief is based on research where chimps are taught language. In one such research project a bonobo distressed by a man yelling at one of the female researchers, told a male researcher he must become violent with the man who yelled at the female, and the male researcher, of course, argued he would do such a thing. The bonobo told him if he did not hit the man who yelled at the woman, he would bit the male researcher for not doing what he should do. Of course the male researcher did not strike the man, and a few days the bonobo bit him, and so severely damaged his finger he had to go to the hospital and missed days of work. Later he refused to get near the bonobo until the bonobo apologized, and the bonobo did, proving the bonobo had a concept of right and wrong (bad behavior must be disciplined with violence) and cause and effect (I hurt Tom and now Tom won't visit with me unless I apologize).

 

However, humans can learn simple concepts, and several simple concepts form complex concepts, such as a concept of time, God, or democracy. I mention this, because education for technology does not prepare us for abstract thinking and this becomes a serious social and political problem. A concept of God is quite essential to social and political thinking. I refer you to Cicero, and an understanding of universal law and logos, and our Declaration of Independence, the Laws of Nature and Nature's God that make democracy possible, and which is completely different from Zeus or the God of Abraham. Think of time and God are close to the same thing, because they are abstract concepts, that we treat as a tangible reality. When we insist on treating God as a tangible reality, we get into serious trouble, and every discuss of God is brought to an end, because they can never get beyond the argument about the existence of God. This is a failure to understand, time and God are not tangible reality. When we reject God as an abstract reality we make vitally important discussion impossible, and I have referred to this as being a NAZI, because the education for this thinking is dangerously limited to tangible reality and is unfit for self governing people. That is, abstract thinking is vital to our humanness, and ability to govern ourselves, and resolve our social problems without violence. To stop our education at tangible reality, and the reasoning of chimps, leads to the reality that manifested Hitler's New World Order which is ordered not by a culture of independent thinkers, but by Prussian military order applied to citizens.

 

Abstraction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For specific types of abstraction and other uses of the term, see Abstraction (disambiguation).

 

Abstraction is a process by which higher concepts are derived from the usage and classification of literal ("real" or "concrete") concepts, first principles, or other methods. "An abstraction" is the product of this process – a concept that acts as a super-categorical noun for all subordinate concepts, and connects any related concepts as a group, field, or category.[citation needed]

 

Abstractions may be formed by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to the more general idea of a ball retains only the information on general ball attributes and behavior, eliminating the other characteristics of that particular ball.[citation needed]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Think of time and God are close to the same thing, because they are abstract concepts, that we treat as a tangible reality."

"This is a failure to understand, time and God are not tangible reality. When we reject God as an abstract reality we make vitally important discussion impossible"

The idea of god as "our ability to abstract" is genius but quite apart from there being an existence of god; We all have our own personal god but the debate of god stems down the lines of papal systems etc I.E your god is not my god, i do not follow a leader of a set religion etc. Also our ability to abstract and god as a conceptual abstraction seem quite opposing to me, god would seem to be the "whole" from which we are abstracting? Im kinda confused really, are you saying god is a tangible reality, our ability to abstract, a conceptual abstraction or the sum of???

 

 

 

 

"A concept of God is quite essential to social and political thinking."

Why do we need to conform to a unified conception of god? abstract reality almost certainly goes against any definite unified conception in so much as we can experience the same thing in different ways.

most democracies fly the banner of secularism (separating religion from political thinking (for which a superimposed definition of god exists)) and that imho is best, unless we want the crusades round 2.

 

 

 

"When we reject God as an abstract reality we make vitally important discussion impossible, and I have referred to this as being a NAZI, because the education for this thinking is dangerously limited to tangible reality and is unfit for self governing people"

 

NAZI's followed a leader they believed in, religion's follow leaders they believe in....

 

 

 

"My argument is, some animals are capable of language and reasoning, but this is not equal to abstract thinking."

I dont have enough psychological knowledge to venture an opinion of what stage or how conscious other animals are, i would certainly say certain animals are very capable of quite high levels of thinking or cognitive functionality if you like (such as the monkeys photographic memory test), weather they can abstract thoughts is another matter entirely; all very interesting stuff Athena :D

 

P.S i still believe god is creativity; though the abstraction has me thinking about "Why god", as in why we even give a place holder for our "tangible reality", unknown abstractions or creativity per se. It seems like were putting things into other things that make something else that with that other thingy that makes something that was needing something else for that thing so the place holder is the set of all sets that unknowingly has a set of itself contained within. blink.gif

 

P.P.S i stopped making sense about 2 sentences ago unsure.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

A reminder that this is framed as a science question about the mind and thought, etc., concerning abstract thought, and not about the existence of any supreme being. Don't go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am arguing only humans are capable of abstract thinking. However, this is a skill that must be learned, and if it is not taught it can not be learned.

 

I think this is demonstrably false. If it must be taught, who taught it to the first humans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

A reminder that this is framed as a science question about the mind and thought, etc., concerning abstract thought, and not about the existence of any supreme being. Don't go there.

 

Wow, a super thank you! However, I do edge into what might be considered religious, based on how our minds work, but my thinking does not go with the mythology of religions. I think we need a knew understanding that is compatible with science, to counteract some of the destructive thinking that has become popular and is causing a crisis.

 

I have been in some discussions about language, and have decided our ability to use language makes us pretty awesome. Like the more I think about it, the more mind blowing it is, what we can do with our minds. The talk that compares us to animals, seems to be taking for granted what we have achieved, and is taking us down the wrong path. More like Hitler's Germany than the democracy we defended in two world wars. I come from a belief in evolution, and think our decisions about crime and other human matters would be much, much better if we take our animal nature into consideration, but to stop there, just doesn't do us justice, and it destroys the American dream of individual human dignity and government by consensus that improves life on this planet!

 

For me God is the bigger picture, and we are the only species that can contemplate that bigger picture. Perhaps we create God with our own minds? I mean, beyond creating stories of gods, want happens when people believe a God wants us to be moral, loving and forgiven and to do good works? Ouch, this is tipping into philosophy, but it appears our religions have much to do with economic progress, or a lack of progress. We are seeing this in China where Christianity is replacing Confusism (sp?), and we see how Islam has held back Islamic countries. But now China is rapidly becoming the largest Christian country on earth with a rapidly growing economy. People are taking a a serious look at the relationship between the Protestant work ethic and economic growth. In this science community, I might suggest we don't want to be left behind. What if killing God is also killing our economy, and really not the smart thing to do? I am not saying we should pick up a mythology that makes God unbelievable, but rethinking how awesome our minds are, and how we are different from animals,. If there is no other God, what if our shared consciousness has a God like effect on our lives? Scientifically, is language and communication and the ability to think abstractly, a God like power in our lives? Can we use reason to create a better reality? Abstractly, is there another word that is as all inclusive as "God". This is language- Quantum physics is the name given to a huge subject about energy units, and God an even bigger subject. Thank you, Swansont, for making this discussion possible.

The question of who first taught the skill of abstract thinking? That is such an easy question. It was discovered. This began with the earliest mathematicians. Not the Egyptians and Indians who came up with amazing math, but the Greeks who took math out of religion and made it science. I have run out of time. Aristotle is a major player in the development of abstract. I will get back with a further explanation if people are interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Think of time and God are close to the same thing, because they are abstract concepts, that we treat as a tangible reality."

"This is a failure to understand, time and God are not tangible reality. When we reject God as an abstract reality we make vitally important discussion impossible"

 

The idea of god as "our ability to abstract" is genius but quite apart from there being an existence of god; We all have our own personal god but the debate of god stems down the lines of papal systems etc I.E your god is not my god, i do not follow a leader of a set religion etc. Also our ability to abstract and god as a conceptual abstraction seem quite opposing to me, god would seem to be the "whole" from which we are abstracting? Im kinda confused really, are you saying god is a tangible reality, our ability to abstract, a conceptual abstraction or the sum of???

 

 

 

 

"A concept of God is quite essential to social and political thinking."

 

Why do we need to conform to a unified conception of god? abstract reality almost certainly goes against any definite unified conception in so much as we can experience the same thing in different ways.

most democracies fly the banner of secularism (separating religion from political thinking (for which a superimposed definition of god exists)) and that imho is best, unless we want the crusades round 2.

 

 

 

"When we reject God as an abstract reality we make vitally important discussion impossible, and I have referred to this as being a NAZI, because the education for this thinking is dangerously limited to tangible reality and is unfit for self governing people"

 

NAZI's followed a leader they believed in, religion's follow leaders they believe in....

 

 

 

"My argument is, some animals are capable of language and reasoning, but this is not equal to abstract thinking."

 

I dont have enough psychological knowledge to venture an opinion of what stage or how conscious other animals are, i would certainly say certain animals are very capable of quite high levels of thinking or cognitive functionality if you like (such as the monkeys photographic memory test), weather they can abstract thoughts is another matter entirely; all very interesting stuff Athena :D

 

P.S i still believe god is creativity; though the abstraction has me thinking about "Why god", as in why we even give a place holder for our "tangible reality", unknown abstractions or creativity per se. It seems like were putting things into other things that make something else that with that other thingy that makes something that was needing something else for that thing so the place holder is the set of all sets that unknowingly has a set of itself contained within. blink.gif

 

P.P.S i stopped making sense about 2 sentences ago unsure.gif

 

Really good. I think when we are confused about what we think, it is a good indication we are really thinking. On the other hand, if a person is absolutely sure of s/he thinks, s/he is a fool.

 

It is not God that is abstracting, but we are. I am bit frustrated with my lack of time, compounded by my difficulty in articulating the point. We have named atoms and parts of atoms, like the Greeks once named gods. This is necessary to our ability to form words and communicate concepts. We do this on a level way above what any animals do it. This is not making sounds that others understand as warnings or mating calls. This is doing something really different with a sound! You get an idea and give it a name- you may call the idea a god or an atomic particle, the point is, you know that combination of sounds, that makes up a word, is a concept, and if it is a complex concept, it means a whole of things in relation to each other. We are talking the miracle of our minds and communication.

 

I will get back to the objection to education and NAZI mentality as soon as possible.

Edited by Athena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the reference to NAZI in this, Hitler was religious, a great many men who have been the center of a cult of personality and were believers in a god separate and apart from their own cult. Many have used religion to promote their own cult of personality but I don't see how NAZI enters into this as many NAZI's were devoutly religious and not inherently evil people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the reference to NAZI in this, Hitler was religious, a great many men who have been the center of a cult of personality and were believers in a god separate and apart from their own cult. Many have used religion to promote their own cult of personality but I don't see how NAZI enters into this as many NAZI's were devoutly religious and not inherently evil people...

 

 

Thank you Moontanman. Your question is at the center of everything I say. Remember again and again I complaining about replacing liberal education, with the German model of education for technology. I do several forums, so I am not sure if I have said here, liberal education is for free people, and historically, education for technology has been for slaves. Note in the beginning of this thread, I mention chimps can learn our language, and I tell a story of a Bonobo that demonstrates they reason right and wrong and cause and effect. This is a totally fascinating subject, because we kind of put chimps in a crisis when we teach them language and our culture. They can not be safely returned to the wild when we do this. I am saying we are not so different from chimps, however, we can learn the higher abstract thinking skills and this makes us very different from other animals. Learning higher abstract thinking skills or not, is sort of matter of having liberal education or education for technology, you know, that education good for slaves, but not good for self governing people who enjoy liberty.

 

What was so horrifying about NAZI, Germany? A while back I asked if people had seen the movie "The Reader". Maybe I shouldn't even attempt this discussion until everyone has seen that movie? There is another excellent movie that also gets the same point across. The point regards this almost obsessive need to obey the rules, obey the laws. Someone like this is probably not an abstract thinker. The person may be very smart, but they seem almost obsessed with rules and power. This is about how we train people to think. We literally changed how we train people to think when we replaced liberal education with education for technology, and among other things, this leads to reactionary politics. We might call chimp politics, reactionary politics. One of the worst problems in Germany, at least as early as the first world war, was they had reactionary politics. Another problem is paranoia, an individual, or national obsession, with being superior and in control. The cure for these problems is education for abstract thinking and an abstract understanding of God. When I said someone would make a good NAZI, that was not meant to be an insult, but a warning about what we have done to our country and the direction we are going.

 

I don't want this to get too far from science. Here is a link that keeps this discussion in the realm of science. http://www.braintumo...in-anatomy.html The link is about the different parts of the brain that preform the different thinking task. An Olympic champion is exercising different parts of the brain, compared the areas of brain exercised by scientists or poets. You can rapidly advance technology and have a very smart, technological population, and destroy democracy at the same time. We are talking about which areas of the brain we exercise, and how we are taught to use our brains. Like there is no way I can have this discussion with my twenty year old grandchildren! I used to think when we became adults, our thinking improved and I kept waiting for everyone to grow up. When I studied the history of education, I realized this isn't about growing up, but about how we teach the young to use their brains. We are talking the ability to discuss God and morals, and not get hung up on if God exist or not. To say God does not exist may not be technologically correct, because God is not tangible reality. However, to understand the importance of God, is to understand why in math we use X to represent an unknown factor. God, is useful in abstract thinking, and this useful for self governing people who can enjoy liberty. It is learning to be different from the Bonobo who thought biting was a good way to make others do when they were told to do.

 

I want to say, at about the same time its evolution, Athens replaced its liberal education with education for technology, and this leads to the atrophy of a civilization. Like at first, it made it possible for Athens to spread out and control more territory. At the same time Hellenism was being spread, Athens was dying.

Edited by Athena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

your continued attempts to portray technology based education with NAZIsm is flawed and not a viable comparison...

 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Nazi_Party

 

 

Oh God, how funny! I took the time to check out your link, and those politics are different from the Tea Party and our own politics how? We must have arms and show our strength, and we must not tax for this military expense. You can have your cake and eat it too, if you dare to be strong enough to act on your will. And be strong we must, because our enemies threaten us.

 

Obviously one needs to know something about our humanness, education, culture and politics, to judge if what I am saying is flawed or not. Thank you for raising my awareness of the need for more explanations.

 

Moving along, this explanation of abstract thinking is a good one, although not complete, I see in it a degree of explaining why God, a need to see the bigger picture, is important. I don't know if it will help anyone understand the social and political ramifications of replacing liberal education with education for technology, but I am trying.

 

 

 

 

WHAT ARE CONCRETE AND ABSTRACT THINKING?

 

Abstract thinking is a level of thinking about things that is removed from the facts of the "here and now", and from specific examples of the things or concepts being thought about. Abstract thinkers are able to reflect on events and ideas, and on attributes and relationships separate from the objects that have those attributes or share those relationships. Thus, for example, a concrete thinker can think about this particular dog; a more abstract thinker can think about dogs in general. A concrete thinker can think about this dog on this rug; a more abstract thinker can think about spatial relations, like "on". A concrete thinker can see that this ball is big; a more abstract thinker can think about size in general. A concrete thinker can count three cookies; a more abstract thinker can think about numbers. A concrete thinker can recognize that John likes Betty; a more abstract thinker can reflect on emotions, like affection.

 

http://www.projectle...t_thinking.html

 

PS this is how great philosophers, like Socrates and Plato, taught their pupils how to think abstractly. The question of having philosophy kings, is about having people trained for the higher thinking level ruling over us. The difference is very important, and liberal education prepared every child for higher thinking levels. Edited by Athena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly do you mean by liberal and technological education? liberal is art and technological is science? I.E BA/BS? Or education we must pay for being technological? again im confused, anyone can get a free education from the library or a forum such as this OR you can pay and get a qualification to prove you've been taught X subject to Y level;

 

 

technology gives great a outlook for creative individuals and teams(enhanced ability to create), who cares about corrupt politicians or political systems?

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Abstract_type

 

"In programming languages, an abstract type is a type in a nominative type system which cannot be instantiated. (However, it may have concrete subtypes that do have instances.) An abstract type may have no implementation, or an incomplete implementation. It may includeabstract methods or abstract properties[1] that are shared by its subtypes.A type that is not abstract is called a concrete type.

 

 

In many object oriented programming languages, abstract types are known as abstract base classes. In some languages, abstract types with no implementation are known as interfaces. Other names for language features that are (or may be) used to implement abstract types include traits, mixins, flavors, or roles."

 

hmmm, "PS this is how great philosophers, like Socrates and Plato, taught their pupils how to think abstractly. The question of having philosophy kings, is about having people trained for the higher thinking level ruling over us. The difference is very important, and liberal education prepared every child for higher thinking levels. "

 

Every prince is taught from birth, there can be only one king....

 

 

P.S the nazi's were an uprising against something, who knows what? i do wonder; perhaps a system where a certain small religion had control of a large proportion of the nations wealth? (just a suggestion (might i also suggest race is only brought into the equation through a process of religion, Christians perhaps felt they had moral high ground given their goal was to serve god and not to make moolah/scrilla )) politics and religion should not cross paths!!!! but when they do, its always to the detriment of the losers blink.gif

Edited by KatzAndMice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many books about education and "Dumbing Down America" is one of the most popular.

<a name="postPS">

Book Description

Publication Date: August 31, 1991 With over 70,000 copies of the first edition in print, this radical treatise on public education has been a New Society Publishers' bestseller for 10 years! Thirty years in New York City's public schools led John Gatto to the sad conclusion that compulsory schooling does little but teach young people to follow orders like cogs in an industrial machine. This second edition describes the wide-spread impact of the book and Gatto's "guerrilla teaching."

 

John Gatto has been a teacher for 30 years and is a recipient of the New York State Teacher of the Year award. His other titles include A Different Kind of Teacher (Berkeley Hills Books, 2001) and The Underground History of American Education (Oxford Village Press, 2000).

 

 

Follow orders like cogs in a machine. That is what became NAZI Germany, the New World Order, a mass of humanity behaving like army ants.

 

To say we are being dumbed down, assumes we were smarter, and perhaps you have met someone who will say we had 8th grade students who were smarter than our graduates are today? One of the complaints about our world war enemy, was it had a mechanical society. In 1899 Williams James published "Talks to Teachers on Psychology: and to Students on Some of LIfe's Ideals". He wrote of the education we adopted in 1958 and he was not favorable. At the other extreme of our present education for technology is John Dewey and his explanation of preparing individuals for independent thinking. And whenever, considering this matter, we should think of Thomas Jefferson and his thoughts on what education has to do with a strong republic.

 

Does it help to point out that Germany was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire and the Protestant Reformation? It was not lack of Christianity that made Germany our enemy. Germany was a capitalist republic so those issues were not what made Germany our enemy. But a mechanical state focused on military might to protect its economic interest, defined our enemy. They had centralized education for technology for military and industrial purpose, from the time of Bismark and the Prussian take over of Germany.

 

Concrete thinkers interpret the bible very differently from abstract thinkers, and by the way, the witch hunts began in Germany. The whole battle over if God exist or not, boils up out of concrete thinking, with Christians whose God is very tangible in their minds, pitted against the equally concrete thinkers who insist God doesn't exist. This is a completely different spirit than the spirit that once defined our country, where people were tolerant of different beliefs, and thought religion was a private matter, not a subject for debate. It was not until the Christian right re elected Bush, who used religious mythology to get public approval of his invasion of Iraq and later to be re elected, that I stopped being tolerant of our religious differences, and began arguing against Christian mythology, however, then I became increasing aware of why we need God, so now both sides throw stones at me, for saying there is a God and for saying the mythology that begins with Judaism is not God's truth. This kind of concrete thinking and arguing, is what lead to the 30 Years War that devastated Germany, and resulted in the Prussians taking control. WHAT MADE THE US DIFFERENT WAS LIBERAL EDUCATION AND LEARNING THE HIGHER ABSTRACT THINKING SKILLS AND THE ABILITY TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE ABSTRACTLY. When we interpret the bible abstractly, it doesn't literally say demons make us sick, and we don't count demons as they flee someone's body, but we think of those demons abstractly as fear, anger, grief. There is an important benefit to having an abstract God and thoughts of morals, and I doubt if any civilization can last long without the benefits.

 

What exactly do you mean by liberal and technological education? liberal is art and technological is science? I.E BA/BS? Or education we must pay for being technological? again im confused, anyone can get a free education from the library or a forum such as this OR you can pay and get a qualification to prove you've been taught X subject to Y level;

 

 

technology gives great a outlook for creative individuals and teams(enhanced ability to create), who cares about corrupt politicians or political systems?

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Abstract_type

 

"In programming languages, an abstract type is a type in a nominative type system which cannot be instantiated. (However, it may have concrete subtypes that do have instances.) An abstract type may have no implementation, or an incomplete implementation. It may includeabstract methods or abstract properties[1] that are shared by its subtypes.A type that is not abstract is called a concrete type.

 

 

In many object oriented programming languages, abstract types are known as abstract base classes. In some languages, abstract types with no implementation are known as interfaces. Other names for language features that are (or may be) used to implement abstract types include traits, mixins, flavors, or roles."

 

hmmm, "PS this is how great philosophers, like Socrates and Plato, taught their pupils how to think abstractly. The question of having philosophy kings, is about having people trained for the higher thinking level ruling over us. The difference is very important, and liberal education prepared every child for higher thinking levels. "

 

Every prince is taught from birth, there can be only one king....

 

 

P.S the nazi's were an uprising against something, who knows what? i do wonder; perhaps a system where a certain small religion had control of a large proportion of the nations wealth? (just a suggestion (might i also suggest race is only brought into the equation through a process of religion, Christians perhaps felt they had moral high ground given their goal was to serve god and not to make moolah/scrilla )) politics and religion should not cross paths!!!! but when they do, its always to the detriment of the losers blink.gif

 

I love your smile. I have to walk my dog. If I have the energy when I get back, I will explain liberal education is not about art and education for technology is not about science.

Edited by Athena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abstract thinking per se is a philosophical concept, not religious. People can a have sound moral, ethical and political basis without needing to abstract meaning from fairlytales out of the bible. The reason "why" we create the placeholder for the word "god" which is a "concept" is because we "abstract" from it? (everything / all possibilities)

 

I dont know a great deal about education but i think you can get what you want from it? you cant be taught art in a way that will make you part of some military machine? blink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly can't make heads or tails of what you're getting at. At first I thought you were arguing for some part of human nature that leads to our creation of gods, but the more I read, the more this appears to be a thread based upon your own stream of consciousness rather than a particular view about cognition. Can you spell out, in an organized fashion, exactly what you are wanting to discuss in this thread? Please don't be afraid to link to studies you cite, or at least give some type of identifying information so that we can locate those studies as reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, humans can learn simple concepts, and several simple concepts form complex concepts, such as a concept of time, God, or democracy. I mention this, because education for technology does not prepare us for abstract thinking and this becomes a serious social and political problem. A concept of God is quite essential to social and political thinking. I refer you to Cicero, and an understanding of universal law and logos, and our Declaration of Independence, the Laws of Nature and Nature's God that make democracy possible, and which is completely different from Zeus or the God of Abraham. Think of time and God are close to the same thing, because they are abstract concepts, that we treat as a tangible reality.

People invented gods and spirits before they invented the chariot wheel because the wheel was the greater exercise in abstract thinking.

 

Technology is abstract thought. It is literally the materialization of something that has never existed before from pure thought.

 

People who understand math and logic even a little know it is the ultimate abstract expression. You shouldn't be worried that the twenty-year-old grandchildren you mention can't (or won't) discuss in your terms how God is like time. If their ability to think abstractly is your concern you should ask how they understand calculus... or how zero can be used as a number.

 

Your post only makes sense to me if I imagine you see technology as a lot of memorization and meticulous procedures. That's how people see math when they don't get it. It is a lot of meaningless rules to memorize. That's how people see computer programming when they don't get it. My 17-year-old niece, about a month ago, was explaining her understanding of object oriented programing to me, and she got the concept of it very well... and taught from a public school!

 

Is that the problem with abstract thought and teaching natural law is the solution?

 

That makes no sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abstract thinking per se is a philosophical concept, not religious. People can a have sound moral, ethical and political basis without needing to abstract meaning from fairlytales out of the bible. The reason "why" we create the placeholder for the word "god" which is a "concept" is because we "abstract" from it? (everything / all possibilities)

 

I dont know a great deal about education but i think you can get what you want from it? you cant be taught art in a way that will make you part of some military machine? blink.gif

 

Hot damn, you said that so well! I wish I had thought to call God a "place holder". Duh, I struggle so hard to say what I mean, and I love it when someone comes along and with the right words.

 

:lol: There are plenty of books about the art of war, and I have several of them. War is a fascinating subject. Coming up through the animal kingdom, we are programmed for aggression. Overcoming those aggressive impulses is crossing from animal to human. I have been told writing of NAZI Germany is too distracting, but it is central to my purpose of writing, because we replaced our liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology, and we also adopted the German model of bureaucracy that shifts great power to the state, and crushes individual liberty and power. It is now the state that defines what we shall do or not do. Our nation that lived for the love of God, has forgotten God and is now following Caesar. Hitler's ideal male was a brute, and hopefully the latest football scandal has people questioning the position football has taken in our colleges. The most important thing people of a democracy need to study is public speaking, but what newspaper reports on high school public speaking? What schools even teach public speaking? :oHowever, they do report high school foot ball. A whole section of many newspapers is just for sports, and this might be linked to the rise of testosterone when males watch football.

 

Personally, those Roman solders in their leather and metal uniforms, are very attractive. How do I say? We are programmed for aggression, and debating what is justice is not apt to attract a lot of people. In several years on the internet, I have not found people interested in knowing why the German model of bureaucracy shifts power to the state, and what this has to do with our democracy. Even if we threw all our weapons in the oceans, we would be a military state, not the democracy we were, organized by family order. We send our young to defend democracy in wars, but what does anyone know of it? Not much. (ah, Swansont and Moontanman, I just preached, and this is a thread about God) Excuse me, but what football does you guys, this subject does to me, and that is why I use the name Athena. Seriously, a man running up a hill to kill an enemy could not be more pumped. The democracy we have today, is not the one we defended in two world wars.

 

 

 

The Two Liberal Arts Traditions

garydavidstratton.gifSocrates (c. 469-399 BCE)

 

Bruce M. Kimball (1986, 2002) discerns two distinct streams in the liberal arts traditions—the Greek Philosophical and the Roman Oratorical.

 

1) The Greek Philosophical tradition was consumed with the pursuit of truth. It was birthed in the life and teachings of Socrates, as recorded by Plato (c. 427-347 BCE) and refined by Aristotle. In the philosophical tradition the liberal arts function as "liberating arts" in that they were designed to "free the mind from traditional beliefs accepted uncritically." Their aim is to examine "our opinions and values to see whether or not they are really true and good" (Hoeckley, 2002b, p. 1).

 

2) The Roman Oratorical tradition focused more on leadership development. It's founder, Cicero (c. 106-43 BCE), never lost sight of his dream that education was about "training citizens to be leaders of society" (Taylor, 2001, p. 1). In the oratorical tradition studying the "liberal arts" meant that students were "liberated" from the pragmatic concerns of merely learning a trade. They were learning to think, so that they could lead their culture toward the good, the beautiful, and the true.

 

Liberal-Arts.gifThe Seven Liberal Arts

 

The two streams developed in tension with one other and eventually converged in the Middle Ages with the establishment of a curriculum rooted in the Trivium—Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, and the Quadrivium—Arithmetic, Music, Geometry, and Astronomy (Cobban, 1975, p. 10; Hoeckley, 2002a, p. 1).

 

More importantly for our discussion, both traditions fostered highly collegial learning environments that were "spiritual," at least in a relational sense.

 

 

Education = Friendship

Education and what we would call "discipleship" were virtually synonymous. Michael J. Wilkins (1992) notes that the ....

http://garydavidstra...like-numbers-2/

 

I hope it is obvious to everyone that liberal education manifest a complete different culture than the one we have now. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! I find it extremely difficult to communicate with people in these forums, because they just do not have the concepts that are essential to the democracy we were manifesting. Now about football, yes, it is very appealing, even for women it can mean being in the in-crowd, and those board shoulders and tight asses, well.... but we are forgetting the culture that made us a democracy with liberty. The whole feel of being a citizen is very different today, and how can our young know this? Not even my younger sister shares my reasoning about what is most important.

 

Education for technology? That is for slaves, and this is not about science, although education for a technological society with unknown values, rapidly advances technology. But science, that requires abstract thinking and moral considerations. Being a technician requires no more than the technical skill and following orders. We replaced the Conceptual Method with the behaviorist Method, and the Behaviorist Method is also good for training dogs.

 

PS studying music is important to learning math, and it also has a powerful psychological/social impact to start the day with a group song. Education dictated by the limited range of intelligence useful for military purpose, is not fit a civilization, and it cheats millions out of the education they need to realize their potential, and it manifest what we defended our democracy against. Living for a love of God and truth, manifest a very different culture than the one today.

Edited by Athena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abstract thinking per se is a philosophical concept, not religious. People can a have sound moral, ethical and political basis without needing to abstract meaning from fairlytales out of the bible. The reason "why" we create the placeholder for the word "god" which is a "concept" is because we "abstract" from it? (everything / all possibilities)

 

I dont know a great deal about education but i think you can get what you want from it? you cant be taught art in a way that will make you part of some military machine? blink.gif

 

I was rushing yesterday, as usual, and didn't comment about morality. "The Little Red Hen" is moral story, and it has nothing to do with any religion. We strongly favored the Roman take on liberal education, and were preparing everyone for good moral judgment, because only highly moral people can have liberty, and leadership. When we entered the world wars, Germany had the technological leadership, but their people were dependent on orders. Our advantage was our training for independent thinking, and if one of our leaders was taken out another emerged. And please get this, God and morals are not restricted to religion.

 

God is not religion until you attempt to define God. However, God is unknown and because we do not directly experience God, we can not know God. The moment we think we know God, we know God not. However, living for the love of God and truth, makes a very different culture, than the culture we defended we defended our democracy against. The culture we defended our democracy was Christian dominated. Christianity without liberal education is not a good thing, it makes both religious folks and atheist more antagonistic. Athens begins with religion, dumps religion, and later philosophy took up the matter of God and morals, and because only highly moral people can have liberty, this is very important to our liberty.

 

People invented gods and spirits before they invented the chariot wheel because the wheel was the greater exercise in abstract thinking.

 

Technology is abstract thought. It is literally the materialization of something that has never existed before from pure thought.

 

People who understand math and logic even a little know it is the ultimate abstract expression. You shouldn't be worried that the twenty-year-old grandchildren you mention can't (or won't) discuss in your terms how God is like time. If their ability to think abstractly is your concern you should ask how they understand calculus... or how zero can be used as a number.

 

Your post only makes sense to me if I imagine you see technology as a lot of memorization and meticulous procedures. That's how people see math when they don't get it. It is a lot of meaningless rules to memorize. That's how people see computer programming when they don't get it. My 17-year-old niece, about a month ago, was explaining her understanding of object oriented programing to me, and she got the concept of it very well... and taught from a public school!

 

Is that the problem with abstract thought and teaching natural law is the solution?

 

That makes no sense to me.

 

I believe I said we discovered abstract thinking as it came out of math. The Greeks did something with math concepts developed in Egypt, Babylon, and possibly India that moved us from the path of religion, to philosophy, and then science. We should not think of math as Arabic numbers, because this is not how math started. It would be more helpful to think of math as sacred and symbolic of the laws of nature.

 

I sincerely thank you for your argument, as it never entered my mind to go into an explanation of sacred math, and liberal education, and God, but of course, that is so necessary! It pleases me so much how these discussions can unfold when they are not blocked by someone insisting "God doesn't exist", or "if you don't define God you are violating the rules".

 

While technology may be abstract that does not make education for technology- preparation for abstract thinking, nor the democracy we defended in two world wars. Early education was not exactly about the 3 R's but the 3 R's were used to transmit a culture and defend liberty with education. Education for jobs, vocational training, was added to public education in 1917 for military reasons. Before this, education was 100% about good citizenship, just like religion. This of course was a serious problem on many levels. Science was blooming with great promises for our future, and our education for citizenship was not preparing us for the future we so much enjoy today. Heck, we would be feeding our children dirt like the people in Hattie if we had begun preparing for a new reality filled with technology. Our life expectancy would still be age 45, as it was when Social Security was enacted to begin at age 62. The benefit of adding vocational training was huge! However, we maintained liberal education until it was replaced with education for technology in 1958. The benefit of rapidly advancing technology is huge. I hate it when people assume I don't believe that.

 

However, education for a technological society with unknown, came with some problems, because it is too extreme in focusing on technology for military and industrial purpose, and is for too matericalistic. There are two ways to have social control, culture or authority over the people. We stopped transmitting the culture necessary for liberty. Only highly moral people can have liberty, and when people do not understand this, they do not know how to protect our liberty, and their judgment is not so moral. Now we have serious problems on our hands, and we need to put God, non material reality, back into this equation.

 

Reality is not 100% matter. The Spirit of America is morale, that high spirited feeling we get when we believe we are doing the right thing, and that is being destroyed. It is difficult to pick out a concise quote for "The Anglo-Problem" by Charles Sarolea but as our nation moves from movies like like "The King and I" and "Sound of Music" packing the theaters, to Batman packing the theaters, we might want to stop and consider what this education manifested in Germany. Reality is not 100% material. We can have Eden or the strongest military might on earth, liberty, or a police state. Education needs to be about more than specializing humans for a technological society with unknown values, that operates like the Borg of Star Trek. Specialized citizens who can not see the bigger picture, and therefore, do not have good moral judgment, and bring us down. I am horrified by the things we are doing to hold up our banking system!

 

Sacred math, is totally awesome and just as difficult to talk about in these forums as God. To think of math as Arabic numbers, instead of the laws of nature, is kind of like having a super great car and terrible fuel. To behave as though there are no limits because technology will always resolve our problems, is worse than believing in Santa Claus.

 

I think this is demonstrably false. If it must be taught, who taught it to the first humans?

 

I noticed you got a point for this statement when your reasoning is in error. I argued your statement and I did not see your rebuttal. If we value truth, obviously when something is wrong bad reasoning it should not good points. Time and again, I have noticed bad reasoning getting good points. Isn't this a problem that should be corrected?

 

What makes humans unique is they can discover truths, and because of our ability to communicate, we can correct each other when our thinking is in error, and we teach what together we believe is true and should be known. I don't think the line to abstract thinking is limited to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, but obviously your thinking is error when you said, what I said "is demonstrably false", then asked a prejudiced question based on a problematic assumption that shines through your question "who taught it to the first humans?" Perhaps you should have asked, how did they learn this? Perhaps our education needs to include more then technology useful to military and industry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your position is remedially easy to show false merely by providing examples of non-human animals engaging in these behaviors like communication and learning and reasoning, of which there are countless many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While technology may be abstract that does not make education for technology- preparation for abstract thinking, nor the democracy we defended in two world wars. Early education was not exactly about the 3 R's but the 3 R's were used to transmit a culture and defend liberty with education. Education for jobs, vocational training, was added to public education in 1917 for military reasons. Before this, education was 100% about good citizenship, just like religion. This of course was a serious problem on many levels. Science was blooming with great promises for our future, and our education for citizenship was not preparing us for the future we so much enjoy today. Heck, we would be feeding our children dirt like the people in Hattie if we had begun preparing for a new reality filled with technology. Our life expectancy would still be age 45, as it was when Social Security was enacted to begin at age 62. The benefit of adding vocational training was huge! However, we maintained liberal education until it was replaced with education for technology in 1958. The benefit of rapidly advancing technology is huge. I hate it when people assume I don't believe that.

 

However, education for a technological society with unknown, came with some problems, because it is too extreme in focusing on technology for military and industrial purpose, and is for too matericalistic. There are two ways to have social control, culture or authority over the people. We stopped transmitting the culture necessary for liberty. Only highly moral people can have liberty, and when people do not understand this, they do not know how to protect our liberty, and their judgment is not so moral. Now we have serious problems on our hands, and we need to put God, non material reality, back into this equation.

I assume the 1917 reference is the Smith-Hughes Vocational Education Act and the 1958 reference is the National Defense Education Act. Where you said that 1917 was added for military reasons -- it was the 1958 act that was added for reasons of national defense (in an effort to compete with the Soviet Union) -- it wasn't the 1917 act.

 

The National Defense Education Act gave federal money for math and science in primary and secondary school. You appear to speak very highly for those subjects. It also gave college aid with fellowships and loans for students. In no sense can this be described "liberal education... was replaced with education for technology".

 

However, even if we grant that you are correct that there is not enough progressive and liberal education -- that it has been replaced by 'technology education' -- in what possible sense could teaching god help that situation? If kids aren't learning critical thinking skills, or 'abstract thinking skills', certainly the worst help we could offer them is teaching them God!

Edited by Iggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed you got a point for this statement when your reasoning is in error. I argued your statement and I did not see your rebuttal. If we value truth, obviously when something is wrong bad reasoning it should not good points. Time and again, I have noticed bad reasoning getting good points. Isn't this a problem that should be corrected?

 

What makes humans unique is they can discover truths, and because of our ability to communicate, we can correct each other when our thinking is in error, and we teach what together we believe is true and should be known. I don't think the line to abstract thinking is limited to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, but obviously your thinking is error when you said, what I said "is demonstrably false", then asked a prejudiced question based on a problematic assumption that shines through your question "who taught it to the first humans?" Perhaps you should have asked, how did they learn this? Perhaps our education needs to include more then technology useful to military and industry?

 

Discovery is, basically be definition, acquiring knowledge that isn't taught. Ergo, your contention that if abstract thinking is not taught it can not be learned, is false. You admitted as much when you answered that it was discovered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Athena

We seem to have strayed massively from the initial post, which concerned the ability to think abstractly and how the god concept is uniquely human, to a familiar castigation of modern education, comparisons with Nazi Germany and a distinctly religion-based content. More importantly - this is not a personal blog, it is a discussion board and too many points are being acknowledged but then ignored and many are just plain passed over. Please keep the discussion focussed and compact. There is plenty of space here and we do not need to crowd every idea into one thread - so could we please deal with the OP's question and if you wish to discuss other matters open new threads.

Please be careful about making sweeping generalisations about entire countries and religions; ie you argue that islam has held back islamic countries, but don't acknowledge that without the islamic scholars most of our knowledge of the classical and hellenic philosophies would have been lost. Additionally, can you avoid using the appellation Nazi other than in its correct historical context.

Please do not derail the discussion by responding to this note within the thread. If you feel it was unfair or unjustified please report this post or PM me (or any other staff member) with any grievances.

thanks

imatfaal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute. Why do you think I am making these post?

 

I assume the 1917 reference is the Smith-Hughes Vocational Education Act and the 1958 reference is the National Defense Education Act. Where you said that 1917 was added for military reasons -- it was the 1958 act that was added for reasons of national defense (in an effort to compete with the Soviet Union) -- it wasn't the 1917 act.

 

The National Defense Education Act gave federal money for math and science in primary and secondary school. You appear to speak very highly for those subjects. It also gave college aid with fellowships and loans for students. In no sense can this be described "liberal education... was replaced with education for technology".

 

However, even if we grant that you are correct that there is not enough progressive and liberal education -- that it has been replaced by 'technology education' -- in what possible sense could teaching god help that situation? If kids aren't learning critical thinking skills, or 'abstract thinking skills', certainly the worst help we could offer them is teaching them God!

 

There have been many reasons for educating children throughout history, and the original purpose of free public education in the US was citizenship. It had nothing to do with vocational training, until war demanded young men with technological skills that were not being taught. That is your Vocation Education Act. We were mobilizing for the first world war, and German military technology was far advanced compared to ours. I really hate the tedious chore of quoting from my books, so I won't cover all the speeches about the urgent need to change our education. I will just quote J.A.B. Sinclair, United States Navy, as he addressed the National Education Association in 1917:

 

As sudden as was the act of an unknown youth whose leap exploded the European powder mine was the stroke of the German military machine, and the momentum with which the war of wars developt was the most amazing feature of the world's greatest cataclysm. This is proved by the startling fact that in less than three months the losses in killed, wounded, and missing was a million men, and nine nations, numbering in fighters eighteen million souls, were at war. Such a state and such events were possible only thru the workings of the most highly organized and scientifically operated military machine the world has ever known, and well it was for that machine's opponents that they too were in a measure organized after the same general scientific plan. (a personal note, our schools were not ready for this! Education was literature, not math and sciences. I collect old school books and study the history of education. We had to scrabble as our teachers were not trained for this, and we didn't have the text books. A female could became a teacher by going to normal school for a few years, not college, and she be teaching all grades, in one room schools, by age 18.)

 

One of the most salient features of the opposing military-naval establishments of the European nations at war today is the specialization of the one-time-citizen-now-soldier along scientific war-industrial trade lines, and -since past and present events and the best human forecast do not justify the human hope for early world-peace- it behooves the citizens of this our country, now adding its part to this well-nigh universal conflict, to train its young men to think and work in like scientific lines to the end that mobilization of these resources may insure our nation against disaster.

 

Sinclair goes on to say we must imitate Germany, but because at the time patriotism was our best defense, we maintained education for citizenship. Liberal education is directly connected to our liberty and this why I write, but if no one pays attention to why liberal education is important, I am wasting my time. Like industry wanted to close our schools saying the war caused a work shortage, and they were not getting their monies worth from education, because they still had to train their employees, who were not getting vocational training. Teachers argued an institution good for making good citizens is good for making patriotic citizens.

 

Public schools were used to mobilize us for both WWI and WII. It was not air warfare and nuclear bombs, that we replaced liberal education, or what Eisenhower called our domestic education, with Germany's model of education for technology, for military and industrial purpose. That is the 1958 National Defense Education Act. This is a real change in the purpose of education, because we stopped transmitting our culture. I was in school when the change was implemented. I remember our teachers walking around as if in a state shock. It was frightening because at the time there was a lot of fear of a nuclear war. Finally, a male teacher explained to us, the purpose of education had been changed, and we were now being prepared for a technological society with unknown values. He encouraged us to think about life with machines doing most the work, and people have more time to do as they please.

 

IQ testing was introduced to help school staff identify those best suited for higher education for military purpose. The IQ testing is limited to the thinking skills necessary for military technology. Those who are better suited for the arts are screwed. They are not getting the education they need to realize their potential. Man I wasn't planning on going here, but our values and how we judge others are so changed. Our culture is radically different, and our politics are now as reactionary as German politics were. We once lived for a love of God, and now we live for the Military, Industrial Complex. Or as Charles Sarolea who wrote in 1912, "The Anglo-German Problem" would say, we are now following Caesar. I studies German because we imitated Germany.

 

Now back to the liberal education- did you read the link I provided? Liberal education strongly focused on preparing everyone for good moral judgment, this was dropped when we replaced liberal education with education for a technological society with unknown values, and left moral training to the church. Now we are in a real mess, because everyone thinks the church is authority on God and morals. It is a mistake to believe I am promoting religion. I am not! I do not think our churches are the best moral authorities. Those who think I am pushing religion, must be skipping over everything I say. If someone thinks I said only Islam holds people back, this person is skimming and not reading what I write, because every religion holds people back. It is insane to attempt to use ancient morality in today's world, because the old books can not answer today's moral questions. Holy books that freeze morality in the time of kings and slaves are not about democracy!

 

I posted a link explaining the spiritual nature of liberal education. Did you read it or anything I have said about moral judgment, and reason, the controlling force of the universe? Like if people don't start getting what I am talking about, I hope you all don't mind if I stop coming back? There is a science and philosophy forum that has been much more enjoyable than this one, and I am having a problem finding enough time for both. I had stopped coming here, but because the other forum helped me developed my thinking I had hope that I found a better way to explain myself, but now, I am thinking the problem is not with my explanations, but the prejudices I face here, and the practice of skimming though want is written, and making an argument without a good understanding of what is being said.

 

I can't resist this wikipedia explanation of higher thinking skills

 

 

 

The Texas Republican Party expressed their opposition to the teaching of certain HOTS by including the following item in their 2012 Party Platform[3]:

 

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

 

 

 

 

Be careful how you vote. You wouldn't want your children thinking for themselves would you?

 

Discovery is, basically be definition, acquiring knowledge that isn't taught. Ergo, your contention that if abstract thinking is not taught it can not be learned, is false. You admitted as much when you answered that it was discovered.

 

 

I don't think you know what higher abstract thinking skills are.

 

Einstein discovered relativity after learning a lot about math. Abstract thinking was not just suddenly discovered all at once, and all humans knew it. It came out of the Greek mind slowly, over a long period of time, and we still work on developing abstract thinking and how to teach it. The Greek achievements came many years after the Sumerian, Babyloian, Egyptian empire golden periods, and only a few people made the discoveries, not your average Joe, and to this day, the average Joe does can not do the higher levels of abstract thinking without education.

 

Do you understand Sumerians, Babylonians and Egyptians did not have higher abstract thinking skills? This is why these cultures were religious despots, while the development of higher abstract thinking skills, made the Greeks secular, and put them on the road to science.

http://en.wikipedia....thinking_skills

 

The concept of higher order thinking skills (HOTS) became a major educational agenda item with the 1956 publication of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Within the cognitive domain of Bloom's taxonomy there are six levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Higher order thinking skills are those skills in the top three levels: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. These three skill levels are important in critical thinking.

 

Might I point out giving me a bad score is critical all right, but it does not qualify as critical thinking. It is just plain cowardice to give people bad scores and no reasoned argument.

Edited by Athena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute. Why do you think I am making these post?

 

 

 

There have been many reasons for educating children throughout history, and the original purpose of free public education in the US was citizenship. It had nothing to do with vocational training, until war demanded young men with technological skills that were not being taught. That is your Vocation Education Act. We were mobilizing for the first world war, and German military technology was far advanced compared to ours. I really hate the tedious chore of quoting from my books, so I won't cover all the speeches about the urgent need to change our education. I will just quote J.A.B. Sinclair, United States Navy, as he addressed the National Education Association in 1917:

 

 

 

Sinclair goes on to say we must imitate Germany, but because at the time patriotism was our best defense, we maintained education for citizenship. Liberal education is directly connected to our liberty and this why I write, but if no one pays attention to why liberal education is important, I am wasting my time. Like industry wanted to close our schools saying the war caused a work shortage, and they were not getting their monies worth from education, because they still had to train their employees, who were not getting vocational training. Teachers argued an institution good for making good citizens is good for making patriotic citizens.

 

Public schools were used to mobilize us for both WWI and WII. It was not air warfare and nuclear bombs, that we replaced liberal education, or what Eisenhower called our domestic education, with Germany's model of education for technology, for military and industrial purpose. That is the 1958 National Defense Education Act. This is a real change in the purpose of education, because we stopped transmitting our culture. I was in school when the change was implemented. I remember our teachers walking around as if in a state shock. It was frightening because at the time there was a lot of fear of a nuclear war. Finally, a male teacher explained to us, the purpose of education had been changed, and we were now being prepared for a technological society with unknown values. He encouraged us to think about life with machines doing most the work, and people have more time to do as they please.

 

IQ testing was introduced to help school staff identify those best suited for higher education for military purpose. The IQ testing is limited to the thinking skills necessary for military technology. Those who are better suited for the arts are screwed. They are not getting the education they need to realize their potential. Man I wasn't planning on going here, but our values and how we judge others are so changed. Our culture is radically different, and our politics are now as reactionary as German politics were. We once lived for a love of God, and now we live for the Military, Industrial Complex. Or as Charles Sarolea who wrote in 1912, "The Anglo-German Problem" would say, we are now following Caesar. I studies German because we imitated Germany.

 

Now back to the liberal education- did you read the link I provided? Liberal education strongly focused on preparing everyone for good moral judgment, this was dropped when we replaced liberal education with education for a technological society with unknown values, and left moral training to the church. Now we are in a real mess, because everyone thinks the church is authority on God and morals. It is a mistake to believe I am promoting religion. I am not! I do not think our churches are the best moral authorities. Those who think I am pushing religion, must be skipping over everything I say. If someone thinks I said only Islam holds people back, this person is skimming and not reading what I write, because every religion holds people back. It is insane to attempt to use ancient morality in today's world, because the old books can not answer today's moral questions. Holy books that freeze morality in the time of kings and slaves are not about democracy!

 

I posted a link explaining the spiritual nature of liberal education. Did you read it or anything I have said about moral judgment, and reason, the controlling force of the universe? Like if people don't start getting what I am talking about, I hope you all don't mind if I stop coming back? There is a science and philosophy forum that has been much more enjoyable than this one, and I am having a problem finding enough time for both. I had stopped coming here, but because the other forum helped me developed my thinking I had hope that I found a better way to explain myself, but now, I am thinking the problem is not with my explanations, but the prejudices I face here, and the practice of skimming though want is written, and making an argument without a good understanding of what is being said.

 

I can't resist this wikipedia explanation of higher thinking skills

 

 

 

 

 

Be careful how you vote. You wouldn't want your children thinking for themselves would you?

First, I don't care what some random naval surgeon said in 1917. It wastes my time to read it as much as it would waste my time listening to Rush Limbaugh today. The rationale behind the Smith-Hughes vocational education act is given in the 1914 report on which it is based. You can read the very well defined, and very non-military, reasons for its existence in that report available online here: Vocational education: Report of the Commission on National Aid to Vocational Education... 1914... Chapter 1: The Need For Vocational Education

 

Your long-winded preaching doesn't change the fact that you were mistaken on that point and mistaken on the act's effect on liberal education.

 

Second, when you say "our politics are now as reactionary as German politics were" you lose all credibility, and people will frankly stop putting up with you. Comparing a free and fair democracy to racially genocidal fascism shows such a lack of judgement, and such a lack of moral seriousness, that I am forced to notice that no amount of reasonable points could have any effect on the mindset from which you're preaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.