1

# Does education disconnect you from reality or make the connection stronger?

de budding

1
Fri 2 May, 2008 01:04 pm
@Pongobongo,
This relativism seems to be where I want to be at, any one know a good introductory book or text that will elaborate on it?. I read the Wikipedia article on it and it sounds very intriguing.
Doobah47

1
Sun 18 May, 2008 11:38 am
@de budding,
See I find problems in the word 'relative' especially when used in the context of for example 'person relative via perception to environment', why? because the two things are not actually related, although they are commonly recognized as being related. So there's a problem with the language making assumptions that it probably should not.

Let's say that person a is related to a dolphin, fair enough I'd say. But saying that a person is related to their name? it's like saying 'apple = 1' - totally unrelated, no common ancestory, just a recognition.

So we recognize some things as being related, and do not recognize as related some things which are related.

Relativism?
VideCorSpoon

1
Mon 19 May, 2008 01:20 pm
@Doobah47,
Doobah47,

I think you may be taking relativism in a literal sense which is why you find it problematic.

When you use relativism in the context of "a person relative via(by) the perception to the environment" the principle becomes confused. First, I'm assuming you mean that "a person is relative to the environment." However, I do not understand the proposition you were attempting to convey with not being related thought they are commonly related? This seems personally axiomatic and not in line with the principle of relativism.

From as far as I can tell, your propositions say;

1.Person (a) is related to a dolphin. (though, is this fair enough to say???)

However;

2.Person (a) related to their name. (i.e. identification???)

Thus;

Unrelated, no common ancestor, just recognition. (Does this conclusion follow from the premises?)

You would have to clarify your statement because I think you are operating off of unstated personal assumptions.

"So we recognize some things as being related, and do not recognize as related some things which are related. Relativism?"
Doobah47

1
Tue 20 May, 2008 05:51 am
@VideCorSpoon,
Yeah, I don't like to read philosophy or submit to generic titles, so if I see a word like 'relativism' or 'essentialist' I make my own meaning.

There were no premises or conclusions, simply the idea that society sees relations between things which are not related - like the relativism between your love of tomatoes and my love of tomatoes - yet it does not see as related my ear and your toe.
boagie

1
Tue 20 May, 2008 06:36 am
@Doobah47,
Doobah47 wrote:
Yeah, I don't like to read philosophy or submit to generic titles, so if I see a word like 'relativism' or 'essentialist' I make my own meaning.

There were no premises or conclusions, simply the idea that society sees relations between things which are not related - like the relativism between your love of tomatoes and my love of tomatoes - yet it does not see as related my ear and your toe.

Doobah,

The above does not sound like a really good idea, unless what you mean is that all words are qualifications and/or limitations, thus, a word is largely defined by its context. Perhaps Our inability to see or discern the relations between things, is the reason for our perception of duality. That fact that there does not seem at the outset any correlation between my toe and your ear is probably from trying to see it or understand it without proper context. The correlated growth of an individual of a species is a model if you like, and there is a correlation between you and your species, the particular and the general.
Doobah47

1
Tue 20 May, 2008 07:43 am
@boagie,
I see words as defined by their text, less con-text.

So 'relativism' is re-la-tive-ism - like this: consistent actions + that + suffix + suffix. So 'relativism' can be described as 'consistently doing x' (a fairly standard definition).

Quote:

Relativism

the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

apple dictionary and thesaurus

That changes the perspective, but does not change the doctrine - my argument is that relative things are relative in as absolute a context as possible; thus 'relativism' is a misleading definition of the concept of theory being abstracted from reality.

What I'd like to say is that although we can never say that 'x=reality' without it being false, we can conceive that the carbon atoms that infest our universe make everything relative: so your toe and my ear are related, and you are related to a dolphin. What we cannot say is that x=reality, which is what all knowledge, truth and morality try to do. Of course this is the fun part of relativism, where it makes the point that every x is relative to some human construct/perception/structure, and not strictly relative to reality; so I do agree with relativism, but I do not like the terminology.
boagie

1
Tue 20 May, 2008 07:56 am
@Doobah47,
Doobah47 wrote:
I see words as defined by their text, less con-text.

So 'relativism' is re-la-tive-ism - like this: consistent actions + that + suffix + suffix. So 'relativism' can be described as 'consistently doing x' (a fairly standard definition).

That changes the perspective, but does not change the doctrine - my argument is that relative things are relative in as absolute a context as possible; thus 'relativism' is a misleading definition of the concept of theory being abstracted from reality.

What I'd like to say is that although we can never say that 'x=reality' without it being false, we can conceive that the carbon atoms that infest our universe make everything relative: so your toe and my ear are related, and you are related to a dolphin. What we cannot say is that x=reality, which is what all knowledge, truth and morality try to do.

Doobah,

Actually I agree with most of what you say, but, text is context for any word. I think you are right to though that truth, knowledge and perhaps morality needs an entirely new slant on it, Most people have a strange understanding of the concept of these things. What truth there is, is highly functional, everything else just is.
VideCorSpoon

1
Tue 20 May, 2008 11:48 am
@boagie,
Doobah47

1
Tue 20 May, 2008 12:20 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
I quit university because I found the study of other people's theories largely unfulfilling. I went back to uni, but now I don't read, I just pick random quotes and write essays based on common knowledge; I get good marks too...

So what if an academic won't listen to somebody who invents a personal syntax or lexicon, an academic is payed to talk about other people's theories - and LO and BEHOLD - the people who write theories invent their own lexicon.

And I rather like to think of myself as that large caterpillar...
VideCorSpoon

1
Tue 20 May, 2008 02:21 pm
@Doobah47,
Doobah47

1
Tue 20 May, 2008 02:40 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
I didn't mention that I can't read more than 3 paragraphs at a time without some kind of incentive, and yes I pick up alot of knowledge through reading/listening, so I can't exactly say I'm uneducated, BUT I refute that any real wisdom will come through the uptake of other people's ideas; call it ignorance if you want, I'd call it wisdom!

Anyway, back on topic: does an educational facility enhance one's connection to reality?

A proper answer would include philosophical thought, such as 'relativism', but then we find a paradox in that said answer will not connect with reality, so I think the only answer is that the question is at fault. Perhaps it should be rephrased as "does beneficial thought entail improved action?"
VideCorSpoon

1
Tue 20 May, 2008 06:42 pm
@Doobah47,
Doobah47

1
Wed 21 May, 2008 05:36 am
@VideCorSpoon,
Well I wouldn't call either to be honest, I'd call both.

I wouldn't like to learn about WWII through experience of a shell, yet nor would I be particularly happy if somebody told me about Hitler's theories on propagation of the Aryan species. So I'd actually rather not learn about WWII at all. Of course it might be important to watch kung-fu movies in order to enhance one's ability to shadow-box/fight off criminals, though I also think that shao-lin sessions with master enthusiasts would be worthwhile - although I suppose that both would count in the latter of your two options.

Some things are best left to study books (like war) and others are perhaps best engaged directly, in contact with reality (like music). To be honest I doubt that any study differs from extrapolated knowledge uptake - in that study vs practice would appear to be the question, so my answer would be both.
VideCorSpoon

1
Wed 21 May, 2008 10:07 am
@Doobah47,
Doobah47

1
Wed 21 May, 2008 04:04 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
But it almost seems as though you would prefer a gimmick rather than the substantive message.

I'd definately prefer to shadow-box with a wall than take a walk around my neighbourhood and see the horror of town-planning post-WWII. The culture I was raised in was completely and utterly mashed up, so yes, WWII can F*ck right off.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

From what I understand in your post, you would first rather prefer extended knowledge from the extrapolation of immediate knowledge. If this is the case, how can you dismiss history or the embodiment of war in the form of a shell? Are these not extrapolations of knowledge and innovation? It is very contradicting to your position.

That, "Some things are best left to study books (like war) and others are perhaps best engaged directly, in contact with reality (like music)." (Doobah47) seems exceptionally problematic. In your example, both study books.

Your position is idiotic. I am a qualified musician and I NEVER studied a book. Absolute crap on your part, absolute bullsh*t. My position on war is that I'd neither like to discover it through immediate knowledge nor through literature. Kung-fu films are violent, they are not an embodiment of war. Jeez where do your go to find that excrement you spout?

Quote:

And reality isn't music, it is an aggregate of human knowledge of harmonics, tone, harness of reverberation, pitch, etc. developed by the human genius.

That's polemic.

Quote:

I actually choose my words quite carefully and I think you'll find that I don't contradict myself, EVER. It's a question of interpretation - too much philosophy (especially in these internet forums) is based on superficial meaning and knowledge derived from other philosophers. You know what? I can prove to you that philosophy is ineffable, but would you care? Ha.

VideCorSpoon

1
Wed 21 May, 2008 07:57 pm
@Doobah47,
am inclined to agree with you.

And I am very excited you can prove that philosophy is taboo. I seriously am. It's off topic, but yeah, sure, I am excited. That is a breakthrough in the history of philosophy and I prostrate myself before you to beg your forgiveness on the matter. Would I care? Sure. Would I care if it came from you given your phenomenal philosophical understanding and grasp of abstract concepts? I would pay money to hear it, that's how interested I am to hear it. As a side note, stand up comedians make a decent wage.

Also, Ha HA! (see, I can do that too, only I added another ha, but I capitalized it and added one of those exclamation mark thingy's to contribute to the overall funniness of the preceding ha to form a type of funniness gradient where the initial ha is followed by a greater, denser HA reaching the climax at the exclamation mark.)

But seriously though, with all wisecracks aside, don't take the exchange of philosophical discourse seriously in that way. Try to approach it from an outer perspective and leave irrelevant emotions at the door. We are here to come to some sort of answer or conclusion, not just blow hot air.
Doobah47

1
Fri 23 May, 2008 02:52 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
I havn't got 'time' to read your entire response, but I must apologize - my outburst was the result of feeling victimized in other threads. sorry.
Zetetic11235

1
Sat 19 Jul, 2008 03:46 pm
@Doobah47,
Best method of education:
#2
Reason :By comparing several circumstances with the same underlying structure and differing outcomes based upon the differing strategies used in the context of the time, pattern recognition is developed and technique for resolving conflict is built. One example of this is a strategic study of wars and propaganda and comparing the strategies to other modes of interaction such as buisiness and politics. By doing this there is instilled in the learner a deep understanding of human nature, (how it can be used to gain power and should that be done ect.) and thus a self understanding.

By viewing history from a standpoint of a 'bin of examples', one can develop a scientific approach to problem solving and apply mathematical formulas to model probablility of victory, thus learning basic combinatorics and statistical analysis in an effective way. One can see the out come of various circumstances in history and draw upon them to apply to the current circumstance if history is considered blatantlyto be useful as a 'bin of examples'. The 'oh my this story is sure interesting' is too subjective an approach to history and seemingly irrelevent to the more logically minded students.

All subjects in education, if considered as models from which generalizations and applicable tools can be derived, are inheirently valueble. Rote memorization is useless if there is no application acknowledged. There needs to be problem modeling in school as soon as there is memorization of 'other worlds' which are actually part of this world and applicable to it. If they weren't applicable they would be useless and thus the conclusion must be that so is the system which teaches them. If a use cannot be found the subject must be dicarded as it is obviously a waste of time unless it is for pleasure, then it has no place in school but only in liesure time.

You want kids to stop thinking that education is pointless? Show them it isn't by the methods above. Don't waste their time, show them how to think things out with the seemingly random inforation. They will excersise much better judgment in their every day activities if they get what is taught. This is the only totally effective education model I can think of.
0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King

Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/18/2021 at 03:01:20