What they never taught us

coberst wrote


having cited Voltaire


but


:wink:

my biggest problem in school was asking why. i always thought it was ME who was off, wrong, whatever.

then i realised it was my refusal to give up my critical thinking that made me feel "off"

today everything is assembly line status. if not, its not cost effective.

Re: What they never taught us


Talk about a needless distinction. I prefer to judge people by both.

Shapeless,

Precisely! Our friend coberst is conspicuous by his absence in response to the questions of others in this forum (and the dozen or so other forums in which he duplicates his "sermons"). Yet he claims to be a "critical thinker" !

Re: What they never taught us


The fact that many think it to be a needless distinction is why it is important enough for me and Voltaire to bring it to the attention of the people. I post in order to make people conscious of important ideas about which they generally are not conscious.

A breathtaking example of unfounded conceit.

...or perhaps bravado to cover his shortcomings.

If ever you saw his web site, which he linked, the thought that he is anxious to cover his shortcomings suggests a true desparation.

I don't know, Set. I see some merit in the whole notion of valuing a man's questions over his answers. I'm always a little wary of someone with very few questions and too many answers. Like George Bush.

Snood,

That analysis depends on context. Presidents are "paid" to make decisions....that is their social function, whether we agree with those decisions or not. Academics on the other hand are "paid" to come up with original ideas, not merely to question others.

Coberst operates on the level of pseudo-academic. He picks up a few crumbs from some academic's table and plagaristically (and tediously)questions "common sense " with them as though they were sacred revelations of "truth". He doesn't seemed to have a clue about balance or dialectical discussion. He is in fact a student of the "Readers Digest School of Book Learning". After each "reading" he is compelled to produce a "homework" in which he must provide written evidence (to himself) that he is "getting somewhere". When he sees his efforts "published" on multiple forums, the illusion is reinforced.

what they never taught us in school
I thought this forum should include things like.... they never taught us this is virtual reality but should have... they never taught us that there is a large mass of corruption that seeks to rule places like this so you have to get through for anything civil to accur..... they never taught us that people should help each other out of real dangers and the blackmarket will try to claim themselves as the avenue.
What they should have taught (at least in my school) is the fact that everyone I went to school with had natural right of existance and the politics necessary to achieve it. Schools here should have covered how to get out of harmful beams if you suffer one (alot of physics in that) and what the equations look like if everyone does at least one thing against the life of another here (as there will be many who do more). That is good 'anti black market maintanance' mathematics.
I believe that how to get out of Earth dangers should be billboarded and there should be a governemt department that gets people ect out of being hostaged (like the crimes and misconduct commission where you can formally approach them and say... the guys on this planet have deliberatly ..... and it is your job to ensure justice).

Re: What they never taught us


If you are proposing that we should judge people based on a single aspect of themselves rather than on multiple aspects of themselves, by all means offer an argument. I am curious to see how one would go about defending such a one-dimensional view of human nature.



I doubt you'll find much dispute about the dubiousness of those with few questions and many answers, just as few would dispute the dubiousness of those with many questions and few answers. It's only by not needlessly polarizing questions and answers that one is mentally equipped to deal with both types.

(amazed) I think there is a lot of wisdom in that. By no means, do I believe, should it be that others should be seen as any less than 3 dimentionally (and usually more) to do so would be to deny the intigue and positive facination of dinamics between individuals (and more) as they get to understand and relate to each other.
My comment though was in the light of there being so much more to things than 'taught in school' and to deny teaching regarding those dimentions is to refuse to equip the mass to survive (on occation). Just as breathing is a neccessity of life here so seems saftey. So we teach to look to the left then to the right to cross the road (or the other way around in the U.S.) but what of teaching how to run home if you get a 'sabotaging beam' it is even more important than stranger danger as you didn't even have to see who did it.
As for questions and answers.... I agree with you. I also believe that the happy willingness to answer the 'questions' is the essence of original creation of knowledge (without wich there would be something good missing).